A Box-Jenkins-Tiao intervention strategy for identifying structural change in legal doctrine: An empirical look at the plaintiff's decision to litigate employment discrimination disputes a decade after the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

摘要

At common law, the employment at will doctrine was the foundation for analysis of the relationship between an employer and employee. Federal antidiscrimination legislation, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 can be viewed as exceptions to the common law rule.; The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA) extends the reach of federal employment discrimination legislation in three ways. First, the CRA amended Title VII and other federal legislation, broadening the scope of the law. Second, the CRA provides for punitive and non-pecuniary compensatory damages, and gives plaintiffs the right to a jury trial when seeking monetary damages. Finally, the CRA overturned seven U.S. Supreme Court decisions that seemed to narrow the scope of federal employment discrimination legislation.; Individual action, not governmental action, is the primary means of vindicating rights created under Title VII and other federal antidiscrimination legislation. Therefore, an examination of the legislation's effect on the plaintiffs decision in favor of private enforcement, that is, the plaintiff's selection of an employment dispute for litigation, is an important part of any study of employment discrimination law and its enforcement.; This dissertation uses outcome data in all federal employment discrimination cases filed between 1970 and 1995 to identify structural change in plaintiff decision-making, and it examines how the intervention in the form of a change in legal doctrine engendered by the CRA has affected these decisions.