Slaughter House Cases Vs. The Civil Rights Cases

Read Complete Research Material

Slaughter House Cases vs. The Civil Rights Cases

Slaughter House Cases vs. The Civil Rights Cases

Civil rights cases

Civil rights cases are hard to prove. I completely agree with the outcomes of he Civil rights cases and Slaughter House Cases. There is seldom direct evidence of discrimination. People don't go around saying, “we're not going to hire you because you're black,” or “we're firing you because you're old.” More often than not, we have to prove our cases by circumstantial evidence. Part of that evidence is proving that the reason give by the employer's decision to fire, or not hire, is not true or not believable. The Supreme Court accepted the case. In a decision which has a profound effect on the future of employment discrimination cases, the Court held that the trial court judge was wrong. (Ross, 1998)

The unanimous decision, shockingly authored by Justice Thomas, stated that a blanket rule of law excluding evidence of discrimination from co-workers in a discrimination case was wrong as a matter of law. The Court relied in its opinion on the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to relevance, admissibility, and prejudice which vests the trial court with broad discretion on these matters. The trial court should determine whether the evidence has probative value and whether sufficient prejudice or confusion may outweigh it. It is a fundamental and liberal standard of evidence which leans toward the admission of evidence given the proper context and foundation. It may seem odd that it took a pronouncement of the Supreme Court to let judges and lawyers know that the same rules that apply to evidence in all civil cases also apply in discrimination cases. But in the tortured history of discrimination litigation, the same rules unfortunately have not been applied (i.e., the granting of summary judgment where material facts are in dispute, the improper weighing of evidence by the court instead of the jury). An opinion by the Supreme Court which held the evidence inadmissible would have been a huge blow to employees faced with the already formidable task of proving that discrimination has occurred. Fortunately, the Supreme Court in an exceedingly pleasant surprise made an important inroad-just by reciting and reinforcing the rules of evidence and thereby neutralizing the playing field. (Ross, 1998)

Slaughter House Cases

In what is probably the most insightful part of their book, Labb? and Lurie lay out how former Supreme Court justice Joseph Campbell, who ...
Related Ads