Law And Soceity Vocabulary Georgetown Govt 315

Front 1

5 things to identify when reading a case

Back 1

1. Procedural History
2. Parties
3. Law
4. accusation
5. injury

Front 2

title 2 , civil rights act of 1964

Back 2

public accommodations act - does not protect against sex or familial status or handicapp.

Front 3

summary judgment

Back 3

a judgment that ends a lawsuit without trial in a case where a judge finds that there is no genuine issue material fact and thus no need to send the matter to a jury.

Front 4

comepnsatory damages/damages

Back 4

money awarded as compensation for injury or loss,

Front 5

punitive damages

Back 5

damages over and above compensation for actual injury intended to punish the wrongdoer for malicious conduct, also called exemplary damges

Front 6

Injunctive relief

Back 6

the defendant is ordered to do something to correct what they did wrong as to prevent it from happening again.

Front 7

Declaratory Relief

Back 7

the court makes a statement declaring that the defendant violated the law.

Front 8

appellant

Back 8

one who files an appeal

Front 9

appellee

Back 9

the party against whom the appeal is filed, the party who prvailed at trial in the lower court.

Front 10

prima facie (fair housing)

Back 10

first face , at first sight, based on first impressions , the inital view of something accepted as true until disprove. so a prima facie case is one with sufficient proof to stand trial and withstand a motion to dismiss or for a directed verdict and that will be accepted as true until the defendant proves otherwise. Prime facie evidence sufficient to establish a claim or defense until rebutted by contrary evidence. in civil rights law often it requires :
1. be a member of a minority
2. qualified to rent
3. was denied to rent, inspect, negotiate.
4. property remained available

Front 11

class action law suit

Back 11

a lawsuit brought by one or few members of a group on behlaf of all the members specially certified by the court to confirm that all the members share a concern and meet other requirements.

Front 12

Red Lining

Back 12

banks refusing to give loans in a certain district, to certain people or charging certain people high rates.

Front 13

direct evidence

Back 13

no assumptions required - self explanatory

Front 14

indirect evidence

Back 14

requires some assumption some analysis some connecting of the dots or some pair with other facts to be significant and prove something.

Front 15

under disparate impact claim - after the Plaintiff provies a prima facie claim then the defendant

Back 15

must articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason /business necessity for the new policy.

Front 16

protected classes under the fair housing act

Back 16

Race
Religion
National Origin
Color
*sex
*disability
*familial status - children under the age of 18 (aside of a senior living facility)
*=added in 1988

Front 17

Dwellings not covered under the FHA

Back 17

single family homeowners, who are renting/selling a unit home , as long as they have 3 or less properties and they are not using a real estate agent or any discriminatory advertising.

Front 18

disparate treatment

Back 18

Intentional discrimination on a protected class - can be proved with direct or indirect evidence.

Front 19

disparate impact

Back 19

a facially neutral policy that has a disproportionate burden on members of a protected class.

Front 20

discriminatory advertising law

Back 20

it is illegal to advertise with an implied preference against a protected class.

Front 21

how to prove discriminatory advertising

Back 21

1- would and objective and reasonable person conclude that it is discriminatory
2-what was the defendants intent (despite the wording of the advertisement)

Front 22

advertising discriminating against sex is acceptable if

Back 22

you are sharing a leased living space

Front 23

prima facie claim for FHA terms and conditions suit

Back 23

1.show you are a protected class
2.prove subject to diff terms and conditions.
3. show these terms and conditions are discrminatory
4.show others not subject to such conditions

Front 24

the only court with precedent over every court in the country

Back 24

U.S Supreme Court

Front 25

mixed motive discrimination case

Back 25

Where the plaintiff has shown intentional discrimination in a mixed motive case, the defendant can still avoid liability for money damages by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been made even in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor. If the defendant establishes this defense, the plaintiff is then entitled only to declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs.

Front 26

prima facie case of disparate treatment in employment

Back 26

1.member of a protected class
2.Plaintiff was discharged
3.was qualified for the position
4.plaintiff was replaced by someone outside his/her protected class.

Front 27

employment discrimination

Back 27

it is unlawful to limit , segregate or classify which would deprive them of employment opportunities based on a protected class

Front 28

BFOQ Bona fide Occupational Qualification

Back 28

requires a business necessity test to pass - does it effect the essence of the business (this is not a test of business convenience)
1- except in cases of legitimate privacy issues (as part of the job essence)
2- there is no available or reasonable alternative to a single sex position.

Front 29

an "employer" under title 7

Back 29

has 15 or more employees.
all aspects of the employer-employee relationship are covered under title 7.

Front 30

if the plaintiff proves that the reason the D articulated was false

Back 30

the P STILL must prove discrimination

Front 31

prima facia claim of disparate impact usually proved through

Back 31

statistics

Front 32

4 categories of legitimate BFOQ's

Back 32

1. Authenticity - a movie role or server in a specialty restaurant.
2.Privacy
3.Sex Appeal - strip club
4.Safety in Prisons

Front 33

C
I
R
A
C

Back 33

C - start with the conclusion
I- identify the specific issue
R- identify the rule of law
A- ANALYSIS - where the rules hit the facts , use analogies, precedent, compare and contrast; highlight any weaknesses in the argument and address them don't ignore them.

Front 34

Quid Pro Quo Claim of sexual harassment

Back 34

an exchange, claims sexual harassment that have an economic effect.

Front 35

Hostile Environment Claim

Back 35

no economic harm - the environment is so hostile w sexuality that it alters the terms and conditions of employment.

Front 36

prima facie for suing employer for sexual work environment

Back 36

1.participating in a protected (work related) activity
2.suffered an adverse employment decision
3.prove a link between this activity at work in #1 and the employment decision.
(you have to show that the employer was responsible not just that this sexual problem happened at work)

Front 37

grooming and dress standards

Back 37

courts have allowed employers to discriminate against sex in terms of grooming standards. It is hard to sue unless:
1.unequal enforcement
2.clear sexual objectification

Front 38

A hostile environment claim requires

Back 38

1.unwelcome harassment (because if its welcome then there cannot be injury)
2.harassment based on a protected class
3.harassment must be severe or pervasive:(spread throughout all parts of). this varies from context to context and job to job.

Front 39

how to prove a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim

Back 39

1.comparative analysis
2.explicit statements
3.aversion or hatred to members of that sex.
4.sexual desire

Front 40

when is an employer liable for sexual harassment charges

Back 40

1. always under a quid pro quo claim (because of the monetary aspect).
2.there is a hostile environment caused by co-workers and the employers fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it. If the employer did not know about the environment then they are still liable if they REASONABLY could/should have known.
3. patrons are ahrassing employees and the employer does nothing when it knows or reasonably should know. or they know but arent taking enough (reasonable) steps to address the problem.

Front 41

polarized voting

Back 41

racial voting , a reasonable assumption to make in court where voters vote for the candidate of their own race.

Front 42

for a court to nullify an election

Back 42

a plaintiff must show that there is great potential for the election to have turned out differently (not necessarily based on the votes/previous turnout of the last election)

Front 43

Supreme court decision in Gingles - the preconditions for finding vote dilution.

Back 43

1. minority group must demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in s single member district.
2. the minority group must show that it is politically cohesive.
3. must show that the non minority members vote as a BLOC and thus they can defeat the minority candidate.
4. Even after all these conditions are met the court decides if the totality of these circumstances = vote dilution.

courts also consider, the extent to which voting is polarized and the extent to which minorities are elected. History of a states discrimination practices in voting , racial appeals in political campaigns. & if past discrimination in other areas of life has hindered minorities from voting.

Front 44

voting rights act of 1965 section #2

Back 44

not voting procedure or pre-requisite can be used to take ones right to vote on the basis of race/color. (in the 70's they added language minority group)

Front 45

a language minority group is

Back 45

U.S citizens with poor english and a naitve language of Asian or spanish or naitve american.

Front 46

speciaties of the voting rights act

Back 46

no disparate treatment or impact and ONLY injunctive + declaratory relief is available.
its discriminatory intent & discriminatory effects.
the Def in these cases is always a govt actor.
primary (even closed) elections are subject to this law.

Front 47

a disabled person under ADA

Back 47

1. a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
2.show a record of impairment or #3
3.is regarded as having an impairment.

Front 48

Prima Facie claim under the ADA

Back 48

1. member of a protected class.
2. evidence of disability
3.show qualifiaction for job
4.faced adverse employment option
5. a non disabled person got the job or it remained empty.

Front 49

Qualified for the job under the ADA means

Back 49

one must - be able to perform the essential functions of the job either with or without accomodation.

Front 50

major life activity

Back 50

activity of central importance that the average person can do with little to no difficulty. in 2009 this definitions was extended to include major bodily functions to include people with medical conditions that left them disabled like cancer patients pancreatic caner/lung cancer/

Front 51

substantially limits

Back 51

long or short term disability
how much does it limit
effects on the body
*each case requires an individual assessment it is hard to make absolute laws when concerning disabilities.

Front 52

people regarded as being disabled

Back 52

people perceived to have a mental/physical disability that is not transitory and minor.

Front 53

3 titles of the ada

Back 53

1- employers w 15+ employees.
2. state and local govt service and activities - disabled people must be able to enjoy them.
3.places of public accommodation - definition in this case:every business and non profit that services the public. architect standards and reasonable changes to business policies.

Front 54

ADA 2009 amendment

Back 54

with the exception of eye glasses - when deciding whether or not one is disabled DO NOT factor in their corrective aid.

Front 55

a reasonable accomodation........

Back 55

must be made at the beginning of employment.
employers can assess applicants in light of making the reasonable accommodation.
they dont have to make an accommodation that causes an undue burden like an unreasonable expense or difficulty. this varies from case to case and company to company.

Front 56

with a disparate treatment claim it is critical to

Back 56

it is critical to prove a motive!