Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold Recent documents in Michael E Gold en-us Sun, 31 May 2009 09:20:54 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/11 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/11 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:56:27 PDT [Excerpt] This article next explores the economic implications of the various applications of Manhart. Because women outlive men, equal contributions and equal monthly benefits for counterparts make women more costly employees than men. Employers who realize this fact will be tempted to hire fewer women or to pay them less money. Equal contributions and equal monthly benefits also often mean that men must subsidize women's benefits. A man therefore can increase his compensation by working for an employer who has either no retirement plan or a severance pay plan, while a woman can increase her remuneration by working for an employer who maintains a conventional plan. Rational employees will tend to go where their compensation is maximized, producing two results: (1) men and women will work for different employers, according to the nature of their retirement plans; and (2) to the extent that this process is completed, women will receive lower monthly benefits than their male counterparts. Each of these consequences occurs because the Supreme Court distinguished inManhart between conventional retirement plans and severance pay plans, a distinction that this article argues is unnecessary and should be abandoned in favor of a policy of treating all retirement plans according to the same rules. Michael Gold http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/9 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/9 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:26:00 PDT Michael Evan Gold http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/8 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/8 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:25:57 PDT This Article examines the adverse impact theory of employment discrimination under Title VII. The author begins by discussing the development of adverse impact in the case law, and by scrutinizing its theoretical underpinnings. He demonstrates that Congress did not intend to mandate adoption of adverse impact theory when it established Title VII. The author then argues that the Courts have exceeded their authority under Title VII by embracing the theory of adverse impact. He concludes that the courts should therefore return to a narrower theory of employment discrimination, namely, a theory based on the legal concept of "intent." Michael Evan Gold http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/6 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/6 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:25:51 PDT Following a brief statement of the legislative history of Title VII, this Article describes how, and then explains why, four important issues were treated as they were by Congress and the courts. The evidence reveals that both institutions of government were influenced by the competing interests, and that the conclusion is drawn that the process of lawmaking is similar in this important way in both courts and the legislature. Michael Evan Gold http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/5 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/5 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:25:48 PDT Michael Evan Gold http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/4 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/4 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:25:45 PDT Michael Evan Gold http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/3 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/3 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:25:42 PDT Michael Evan Gold http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/2 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/2 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:25:39 PDT Written by Warren L. d'Azevedo as revised and enlarged by Michael Evan Gold. Michael Evan Gold http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/1 http://works.bepress.com/michael_gold/1 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:25:35 PDT Michael Evan Gold