NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED215418
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1982
Pages: 10
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
1981 Supplement to Burden of Proof--The Controlling Principle in Applying the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Frels, Kelly
The primary purpose of this article, the eighteenth chapter in a book on school law, is to discuss significant Supreme Court cases decided since 1977 concerning burden of proof in civil rights cases. In two cases, "Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman" and "Columbus Board of Education v. Penick," the Court's most significant finding was that to establish a violation of equal protection the plaintiff must show forbidden purpose. In "Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeny," a case challenging a state law giving veterans preference for state employment, the court denied the challenge because it found no sexually discriminatory purpose behind the statute. A case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine," determined that in discrimination cases the ultimate burden of proof of a defendant's guilt resides with the plaintiff. The Court also ruled in this case that in determining "disparate treatment" (as opposed to "disparate impact"), purpose or intent to discriminate is essential. In conclusion, cases decided since 1977 refine rather than alter the Court's position on burden of proof, although it now appears more certain that proof of intent is necessary to establish liability under certain civil rights legislation. (Author/JM)
Not available separately; see EA 014 500.
Publication Type: Books; Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, KS.
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Civil Rights Act 1964 Title VII; First Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment