解开第七章的转介和延期计划所编织的网络

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q4 LAW Catholic University Law Review Pub Date : 2009-08-12 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1243694
L. D. Taylor
{"title":"解开第七章的转介和延期计划所编织的网络","authors":"L. D. Taylor","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1243694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Title VII's dual enforcement scheme creates knotty preclusion and subject-matter jurisdiction issues. The statute requires that claims of employment discrimination made in those states or localities with their own administrative enforcement bodies must first be presented locally, and may be pursued in the federal system only after affording the state administrative body time to attempt their resolution. The result of this dual enforcement scheme is that in some cases, a claim comes to federal court after it has already been adjudicated in the state system. Questions then arise as to whether the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the claim and, if so, the extent to which the prior state determination deserves preclusive effect. This Article will attempt to untangle the complicated web of preclusion and jurisdiction issues created by Title VII's dual enforcement scheme, and to define for the benefit of students, practitioners, and judges the approach to resolving such issues that best furthers the implicated legal and policy concerns of workplace equality and federalism.","PeriodicalId":44667,"journal":{"name":"Catholic University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Untangling the Web Spun by Title VII's Referral & Deferral Scheme\",\"authors\":\"L. D. Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1243694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Title VII's dual enforcement scheme creates knotty preclusion and subject-matter jurisdiction issues. The statute requires that claims of employment discrimination made in those states or localities with their own administrative enforcement bodies must first be presented locally, and may be pursued in the federal system only after affording the state administrative body time to attempt their resolution. The result of this dual enforcement scheme is that in some cases, a claim comes to federal court after it has already been adjudicated in the state system. Questions then arise as to whether the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the claim and, if so, the extent to which the prior state determination deserves preclusive effect. This Article will attempt to untangle the complicated web of preclusion and jurisdiction issues created by Title VII's dual enforcement scheme, and to define for the benefit of students, practitioners, and judges the approach to resolving such issues that best furthers the implicated legal and policy concerns of workplace equality and federalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catholic University Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Catholic University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1243694\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catholic University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1243694","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

第七章的双重执行方案造成了棘手的排除和主题管辖权问题。该法规要求,在那些拥有自己行政执法机构的州或地方提出的就业歧视索赔必须首先在当地提出,并且只有在给予州行政机构尝试解决的时间之后,才能在联邦系统中进行追究。这种双重执行方案的结果是,在某些情况下,一项索赔已经在州系统中得到裁决,然后才提交给联邦法院。那么问题就出现了,联邦法院是否有管辖权来审理索赔,如果有的话,在多大程度上,先前的州裁决应该具有排除效力。本文将试图理清由第七章的双重执行方案所产生的排除和管辖权问题的复杂网络,并为学生、从业者和法官的利益定义解决这些问题的方法,这些方法最好地促进了工作场所平等和联邦制所涉及的法律和政策问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Untangling the Web Spun by Title VII's Referral & Deferral Scheme
Title VII's dual enforcement scheme creates knotty preclusion and subject-matter jurisdiction issues. The statute requires that claims of employment discrimination made in those states or localities with their own administrative enforcement bodies must first be presented locally, and may be pursued in the federal system only after affording the state administrative body time to attempt their resolution. The result of this dual enforcement scheme is that in some cases, a claim comes to federal court after it has already been adjudicated in the state system. Questions then arise as to whether the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the claim and, if so, the extent to which the prior state determination deserves preclusive effect. This Article will attempt to untangle the complicated web of preclusion and jurisdiction issues created by Title VII's dual enforcement scheme, and to define for the benefit of students, practitioners, and judges the approach to resolving such issues that best furthers the implicated legal and policy concerns of workplace equality and federalism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
At the Intersection of Due Process and Equal Protection: Expanding the Range of Protected Interests Easing ‘The Burden of the Brutalized’: Applying Bystander Intervention Training to Corporate Conduct Partisan Gerrymandering and the Illusion of Unfairness Oversight of Oversight: A Proposal for More Effective FOIA Reform Fulfilling the Promise of Roe: A Pathway for Meaningful Pre-Abortion Consultation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1