•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Oritz v. Werner Enter. Inc exemplifies the complexity and uncertainty plaguing employment discrimination law.  Widespread confusion exists, and courts, scholars, and attorneys have expressed the need for a unified method of analyzing such cases.  Despite acknowledgement of the disunity, Congress and courts have failed to provide an adequate alternative.  Rather, in attempting to do so, Congress only increased the confusion and asymmetry among the courts.  Ortiz began to rectify the situation by bringing into focus the ultimate issue that must be addressed and minimizing the use of frameworks that muddle the issue.

This Note argues that the Supreme Court should adopt the Ortiz holding and clarify that evidence is evidence and should not be sorted, labeled, and applied by its perceived place in a direct or indirect proof framework.  By “putting evidence into a box” the courts are perpetuating unnecessary complexity, neglecting the fundamental question, and disproportionally “squeeze[ing]-out” plaintiffs’ claims.  Part II of this article beings with a historical overview of employment discrimination law and the origin and evolution of the direct and indirect frameworks.  It then narrows its focus to the Seventh Circuit and examines case law dealing with the direct evidence methods and indirect evidence methods.  This section then analyzes Ortiz and follows with a brief overview of the variety of interpretations of the direct and indirect methods employed by courts outside of the Seventh Circuit.  Lastly, Part III of this article suggests a solution: the Supreme Court should adopt the Seventh Circuit’s position in Ortiz and affirm the ultimate causation question in employment discrimination cases, which asks whether discriminatory animus caused the adverse employment action.

Download

Share

COinS