Serotonin in the Gut: What Does It Do?

C5 - Other Refereed Contribution to Refereed Journal

Contextualizing Cleburne

Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court decided City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., involving a zoning ordinance that discriminated against the “mentally retarded” in the establishment of group homes. After summarizing the facts and opinions in the case and examining Cleburne’s reception in the legal world (in Parts I and II, respectively), Part III of this Article attempts to identify these external variables. The mid-1980s were a high point of neighborhood hostility to group homes for persons with mental retardation, and a low point of federal spending and enforcement efforts on behalf of the mentally retarded. This social and political milieu, when met with Justice White’s unique brand of judicial restraint, produced a decision that, while resolving the immediate issue in favor of the group home residents, set a precedent that reinforced the second-class status of persons with mental disabilities. In conclusion, this Article assesses the long-term impact of the decision and argues that the need to overturn Cleburne is still strong

Caregivers In The Courtroom: The Growing Trend Of Family Responsibilities Discrimination

When people think of sex discrimination, they tend to think of glass-ceiling discrimination and sexual harassment. This article describes and documents a rapidly expanding area of employment discrimination law: family responsibilities discrimination, or FRD. FRD is employment discrimination against people based on their caregiving responsibilities, whether for children, elderly parents, or ill partners. FRD includes both maternal wall discrimination -- the equivalent of the glass ceiling for mothers -- and discrimination against men who participate in childcare or provide care for other family members

The Evolution of FReD : Family Responsibilities Discrimination and Developments in the Law of Stereotyping and Implicit Bias

This Article integrates a discussion of current family responsibilities discrimination ( FRD ) case law with a discussion of the single most important recent development in the field: the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ( EEOC ) 2007 issuance of Enforcement Guidance on caregiver discrimination. The Guidance concretely informs the public about what constitutes unlawful discrimination against caregivers under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, the Guidance crystallizes two key holdings from case law in regard to Title VII disparate treatment claims brought by caregivers: (1) where plaintiffs have evidence of gender stereotyping, they can make out a prima facie case of Title VII sex discrimination even without specific comparator evidence; and (2) settled case law on unconscious bias applies to caregivers, too, so that even unconscious or reflexive bias against caregivers can amount to actionable discrimination. The goal of this Article is to highlight these important developments for legal academics and employment attorneys — both because of the growing importance of FRD itself and because of the potential impact the EEOC’s recent statement of the law in the context of caregiver discrimination may have for race and other types of discrimination cases under Title VII. Given the growing understanding of the role of stereotyping in everyday life, the role of stereotyping evidence pioneered in FRD cases stands to have significant implications for employment discrimination law in general

Caregivers in the Courtroom: The Growing Trend of Family Responsibilities Discrimination

This Articles describes how attorneys bringing FRD claims face a threshold conceptual issue:How should plaintiffs frame FRD cases under existing discrimination law when neither mother nor parent is a protected classification? The solve this threshold issue, this Article suggests that FRD cases need not be shoehorned into protections for pregnancy nor require individual accommodations to be litigable. FRD cases can be litigated as straightforward gender discrimination cases under Title VII or under a variety of existing laws

Caregivers in the Courtroom: The Growing Trend of Family Responsibilities Discrimination

This Articles describes how attorneys bringing FRD claims face a threshold conceptual issue:How should plaintiffs frame FRD cases under existing discrimination law when neither mother nor parent is a protected classification? The solve this threshold issue, this Article suggests that FRD cases need not be shoehorned into protections for pregnancy nor require individual accommodations to be litigable. FRD cases can be litigated as straightforward gender discrimination cases under Title VII or under a variety of existing laws

A comparison of item and source forgetting

The purpose of the present research was to compare memory for an item with memory for the item’s source. Experiment 1 investigated discrimination between two external sources: each item in a list of words was spoken in either a male or a female voice. Subjects received a test of item recognition and a test of source monitoring at each of four delay intervals (immediate, 30 min, 48 h, 1 week). In contrast with previous research, no evidence of differential forgetting rates for item and source information was found. With delay intervals of 0 and 48 h, Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 while adding a reality monitoring condition that required discrimination between an internal (i.e., self-generated) and an external source. Subjects were better at making internal–external discriminations than at making external–external discriminations, but both types of source monitoring declined at the same rate as memory for the items themselves