Download Free Towards A Civil Rights Approach To Insurance Anti Discrimination Law Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Towards A Civil Rights Approach To Insurance Anti Discrimination Law and write the review.

Discrimination is fundamental to the business of auto and homeowners insurance. Yet state insurance law does remarkably little to police against the risk that this discrimination will unfairly harm minority or low-income communities. Not only do state insurance regulators completely ignore the prospect that facially-neutral insurance practices might disparately impact vulnerable populations, but they affirmatively suppress the production and dissemination of data that would advance a better understanding of this risk. Meanwhile, most states continue to cling to an antiquated, ineffective, and inefficient scheme of “public utility style” rate regulation that purports to prohibit “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory” insurance rates. This scheme not only undermines the operation of efficient insurance markets, but also helps to shield the industry and state regulators from scrutiny regarding how insurance practices impact larger social goals--like facilitating socio-economic mobility. This Article argues that insurance law should scrap its regime of public utility style rate regulation in favor of a civil rights approach to anti-discrimination law. Such an approach should, at a minimum, promote the collection and public disclosure of company specific, transaction-level data on insurance applications, purchases, losses, and policyholder membership in legally protected groups--much in the manner of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Further paralleling modern anti-discrimination regimes in consumer finance, this civil rights approach should afford private parties a cause of action against insurers based on a modified disparate impact theory that reflects the important role of risk-based discrimination in insurance markets. This could be accomplished by recognizing that insurance discrimination based on factors that genuinely predict claim frequency or severity, even after controlling for prohibited characteristics, constitutes a “legitimate non-discriminatory” practice under the familiar burden-shifting scheme for disparate impact liability.
Section 1557 is the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This brief guide explains Section 1557 in more detail and what your practice needs to do to meet the requirements of this federal law. Includes sample notices of nondiscrimination, as well as taglines translated for the top 15 languages by state.
Existing empirical research suggests that human resource officials, managers, and in-house counsel influence the meaning of anti-discrimination law by communicating an altered ideology of what civil rights laws mean that is colored with managerial values. This article explores how insurance companies play a critical and as yet, unrecognized role in mediating the meaning of anti-discrimination law through Employment Practice Liability Insurance (EPLI). My analysis draws from, links, and contributes to two literatures that examine organizational behavior in different ways: new institutional organizational sociology studies of how organizations respond to legal regulation and socio-legal insurance scholars' research on how institutions govern through risk. Through participant observation at EPLI conferences, interviews, and content analysis of insurance loss prevention manuals, my study bridges these two literatures and highlights how the insurance field uses a risk-based logic to construct the threat of employment law and influence the form of compliance from employers. Faced with uncertain legal risk concerning potential discrimination violations, insurance institutions elevate the risk and threat in the legal environment and offer EPLI and a series of risk-management services that build discretion into legal rules and mediate the nature of civil rights compliance. My data suggest that insurance risk management services may sometimes be compatible with civil rights goals of improving equality, due process, and fair governance in workplace settings, but at other times may simply make discrimination claims against employers more defensible.
This is a unique legal collection comprised of the most important U.S. Civil Rights Acts and Supreme Court decisions considering racial discrimination. Ideals, hopes and dreams of Nat Turner, Dred Scott, Martin Luther King and many other activists who fought for equality, are built in the legislative work presented in this edition. Whether you are a law student or a person interested in civil rights and concerned about equality, "Path Towards Equality" will provide you with insight into one of the most controversial issues of the American society. Table of Contents: Emancipation Proclamation & Gettysburg Address (1863) Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1865) Civil Rights Act of 1866 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) Reconstruction Acts (1867-1868) Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1870) Enforcement Act of 1870 The First Enforcement Act of 1871 (to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union) The Second Enforcement Act of 1871 (Ku Klux Klan Act) Civil Rights Act of 1875 Executive Order 9981 (1948) Voting Rights Law of 1965 Executive Order 11246 (1965) Fair Housing Act (1968) United States Code Title 18 Chapter 13 (1968, 1976, 1988, 1994, 2009) The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2007) Case Law: Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) Buchanan v. Warley (1917) Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) Sweatt v. Painter (1950) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Boynton v. Virginia (1960) Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964) Loving v. Virginia (1967) Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
How do we understand and justify the particular partialities that discrimination law tries to protect against? Are different discrimination laws from around the world grounded in a single set of norms? And does discrimination law fail to treat people as individuals? The philosophical study around discrimination law in the private and public sector is a relatively young field of inquiry. This is owing to the fact that anti-discrimination laws are relatively new. It is arguably only since the Second World War that these rights have been adopted by countries in a broad sense, ensuring that all citizens have civil rights and the right to non-discrimination. Theory around discrimination law has until recently been threefold, doctrinal in its approach, questioning equality - why it matters and why should it influence legislatures in the design of policy - and thirdly focusing on the issue of affirmative action. This volume takes a fresh look at the philosophy of discrimination law, identifying points of discussion in need of further study. It addresses how we are to understand and justify laws prohibiting discrimination. For instance, how discrimination might be best conceived - as a personal wrong or as an unfair distribution of resources. The volume then turns to a number of meta-theoretical questions, whether different discrimination laws are coherent and grounded in collectively held beliefs or are instead a collection of very different rules that have no underlying coherence. Lastly, the authors focus on issues in discrimination law that are currently the topic of considerable political debate. The questions raised here are urgent and necessary and it is the hope of the authors that other academics and philosophers may join in their discussions.
This collection of essays explores the evolution of anti-discrimination law in European civil law jurisdictions. Historically, scholarship in this area has focused on the common law, which has also taken the lead in developing the theory and practice of anti-discrimination law. This volume breaks new ground by offering a sustained, critical, legal and socio-legal, comparative look at how anti-discrimination is faring in European civil law environments. While it is true that anti-discrimination law is seen as a foreign transplant in some regions, it does not fare poorly across the board. As shown by the case studies herein, the success of anti-discrimination law is found to vary according to its national context, the actors involved, and the evolution of the particular concept or ground of discrimination in question.
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.
This revised and updated casebook comprehensively compares the U.S. legal approach to problems of inequality and discrimination with the approaches of a variety of other legal systems around the world.