Friedman's The Law of Employment Discrimination, Cases and Materials, 13th

Foundation Press
Primary Subject
Employment Discrimination
University Casebook Series
Publication Date
eBook - Lifetime digital access to the eBook, with the ability to highlight and take notes.


This casebook covers all major aspects of employment discrimination law, including benchmark legislative, administrative, and judicial developments. Due in part to frequent updates and revisions, it has received accolades as one of the most comprehensive and frequently updated texts on the market. The 13th Edition continues this tradition by seamlessly incorporating all major legislative and judicial developments through July 2020, including all relevant decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in its 2019-2020 term. In its most significant ruling, Bostock v. Clayton Country Georgia, the Court brought closure and clarity to an issue that the federal courts had struggled with for decades; holding that Title VII’s ban on sex-based discrimination extends to claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, transgender status, and all other forms of gender identity. It resolved another circuit conflict in Comcast Corp. v. National Ass’n of African American-Owned Media, by ruling that mixed motive analysis is not available in suits brought under §1981. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court expanded upon its prior articulation of the standard to be applied in determining whether a religious entity’s employee constituted a “minister” for purposes of invoking the “church-minister” exception. And in Babb v. Wilkie, the Court held that federal employees, unlike private sector and nonfederal public employees, could assert a mixed motive claim to establish liability under the ADEA, but were required to prove that age was the “but for” cause of the alleged discriminatory act in order to obtain affirmative relief. Finally, among the lower court decisions added in this edition is Rizo v. Yovino, an important Equal Pay Act opinion by the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc which examines whether the use of market forces as a basis for setting salaries is a nondiscriminatory factor other than sex.