Gerry Handley faced years of blatant race-based harassment before he filed a complaint against his employer: racist jokes, signs reading “KKK” in his work area, and even questions from coworkers as to whether he had sex with his daughter as slaves supposedly did. He had an unusually strong case, with copious documentation and coworkers’ support, and he settled for $50,000, even winning back his job. But victory came at a high cost. Legal fees cut into Mr. Handley’s winnings, and tensions surrounding the lawsuit poisoned the workplace. A year later, he lost his job due to downsizing by his company. Mr. Handley exemplifies the burden plaintiffs bear in contemporary civil rights litigation. In the decades since the civil rights movement, we’ve made progress, but not nearly as much as it might seem. On the surface, America’s commitment to equal opportunity in the workplace has never been clearer. Virtually every company has antidiscrimination policies in place, and there are laws designed to protect these rights across a range of marginalized groups. But, as Ellen Berrey, Robert L. Nelson, and Laura Beth Nielsen compellingly show, this progressive vision of the law falls far short in practice. When aggrieved individuals turn to the law, the adversarial character of litigation imposes considerable personal and financial costs that make plaintiffs feel like they’ve lost regardless of the outcome of the case. Employer defendants also are dissatisfied with the system, often feeling “held up” by what they see as frivolous cases. And even when the case is resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the conditions that gave rise to the lawsuit rarely change. In fact, the contemporary approach to workplace discrimination law perversely comes to reinforce the very hierarchies that antidiscrimination laws were created to redress. Based on rich interviews with plaintiffs, attorneys, and representatives of defendants and an original national dataset on case outcomes, Rights on Trial reveals the fundamental flaws of workplace discrimination law and offers practical recommendations for how we might better respond to persistent patterns of discrimination.

Uniquely in the United States, lawyers litigate large cases on behalf of many claimants who could not afford to sue individually. In these class actions, attorneys act typically as risk-taking entrepreneurs, effectively hiring the client rather than acting as the client’s agent. Lawyer-financed, lawyer-controlled, and lawyer-settled, such entrepreneurial litigation invites lawyers to sometimes act more in their own interest than in the interest of their clients. And because class litigation aggregates many claims, defendants object that its massive scale amounts to legalized extortion. Yet, without such devices as the class action and contingent fees, many meritorious claims would never be asserted. John Coffee examines the dilemmas surrounding entrepreneurial litigation in a variety of specific contexts, including derivative actions, securities class actions, merger litigation, and mass tort litigation. His concise history traces how practices developed since the early days of the Republic, exploded at the end of the twentieth century, and then waned as Supreme Court decisions and legislation sharply curtailed the reach of entrepreneurial litigation. In an evenhanded account, Coffee assesses both the strengths and weaknesses of entrepreneurial litigation and proposes a number of reforms to achieve a fairer balance. His goal is to save the class action, not discard it, and to make private enforcement of law more democratically accountable. Taking a global perspective, he also considers the feasibility of exporting a modified form of entrepreneurial litigation to other countries that are today seeking a mechanism for aggregate representation.

To make it easy for you to prepare for a particular deposition or examination, the book is organized by witness. Each witness-specific section delivers: (1) trial-tested strategies and arguments, (2) model deposition questions specific to cause of action and annotated with tactics, (3) checklists and tactics for direct and cross examinations, with extensive examples sprinkled with practice tips, and (4) summary checklists of the important points that should be inquired into for each cause of action. Tools and advice are provided for both employee and management attorneys.Mastering the art of questioning employment witnesses is a career-long process.It can take dozens of years in the courtroom to learn how to persuasively: (1) demonstrate that reasonable economists can disagree, (2) compel an adverse witness to ratify your position, and (3) contradict a manager or plaintiff on an important fact.Tod Schleier's Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses will take years off your learning curve. It is filled with practical strategies, examples, tactics, and tips for successful questioning and other essential elements of employment advocacy.

Consists of interviews with American professors.

Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases.

Over the past four or five decades, the feminist revolution has brought a lot of changes. There is a lot of evidence that the glass ceiling is being shattered. For one particular group, however, gender equity remains elusive. That group is working mothers. The problem of the "glass ceiling" has now turned into a related, from different problem: "the maternal wall." In the first Journal of Social Issues (JSI) to deal specifically with the topic of working mothers, scholars from several disciplines discuss a variety of aspects of the problem of the maternal wall.