Girls Rule, Boys Drool . . . and Must Apply: An Analysis of the Eighth Circuit’s Perplexing Approach to a Failure-to-Apply Case in EEOC v. Audrain Health Care, Inc., 756 F.3d 1083 (8th Cir. 2014)

Authors

Jaydon McDonald, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

I. Introduction

II. Background ... A. Proving Discrimination Generally under Title VII … 1. The Direct Evidence Route ... a. Mixed-Motives ... 2. The McDonnell Douglas Framework ... B. The Genesis of the Futile Gesture Doctrine ... 1. The Futile Gesture Doctrine—Some Things Never Change ... 2. Failure-to-Apply Cases in the Eighth Circuit ... C. EEOC v. Audrain Health Care, Inc. ... 1. Facts ... 2. The Eighth Circuit Weighs In

III. Analysis ... A. The Eighth Circuit Wrongly Circumvented the Direct Evidence Discussion ... B. “Reverse Discrimination”: The (White) Elephant in the Room ... C. Failure-to-Apply: An Employer’s Free Pass under the McDonnell Douglas Framework ... D. Every Reasonable (Ambitious) Effort … E. The Legal Landscape after Audrain

IV. Conclusion

Recommended Citation

Jaydon McDonald, Girls Rule, Boys Drool . . . and Must Apply: An Analysis of the Eighth Circuit’s Perplexing Approach to a Failure-to-Apply Case in EEOC v. Audrain Health Care, Inc., 756 F.3d 1083 (8th Cir. 2014), 94 Neb. L. Rev. 193 (2015)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol94/iss1/6