Negligent Discrimination

75 Pages Posted: 26 Feb 2016

See all articles by David B. Oppenheimer

David B. Oppenheimer

University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law

Date Written: 1992

Abstract

Over the past twenty [now forty-five] years the Supreme Court has articulated two primary theories of employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII). The two theories can be analogized to two of the three prevalent doctrines of common law tort-intentional tort and strict liability. This article sets forth the basis, in current law and in social psychology, for a third theory of Title VII liability, analogous to the third major doctrine of tort law, the doctrine of negligence. My purpose is both to demonstrate that much employment discrimination is the result of tortuous acts that are most appropriately described as negligent, and to reveal that the existing law of employment discrimination, while eschewing the term negligence, frequently incorporates the doctrine.

Note: This 1992 article predates the SSRN, and is re-published here to improve its accessibility.

Keywords: Employment discrimination, Title VII, 1964 Civil Rights Act, Negligence, Intent

Suggested Citation

Oppenheimer, David B., Negligent Discrimination (1992). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 141, pp. 899-972 (1992), UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2737701, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2737701

David B. Oppenheimer (Contact Author)

University of California, Berkeley - School of Law ( email )

215 Law Building
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
United States
5106433225 (Phone)

University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law

Boalt Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
122
Abstract Views
806
Rank
417,807
PlumX Metrics