On Thursday, September 18, ACS released a new study showing how job discrimination cases are faring in the federal courts, and hosted a panel discussion on the issues raised by the study. Entitled "Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs in Federal Court: From Bad to Worse?", the study was conducted by Cornell Law School Dean Stewart J. Schwab and Cornell Law Professor Kevin M. Clermont, based on an examination of official data from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. In the article, which will appear in the Winter 2009 issue of the Harvard Law & Policy Review, the authors reveal that according to their review of the data, employment discrimination plaintiffs are disfavored in the federal courts: their cases end less favorably than other kinds of cases and plaintiffs who lose in the trial courts fare "remarkably poorly in the circuit courts." The authors find, for example, that defendants in job discrimination cases who lose in the trial court have more than a 40% chance of reversal on appeal, while plaintiffs who lose in the trial court obtain reversals in just over 8% of cases. They label this disparity an "anti-plaintiff effect" and conclude that it is likely due to judicial attitudes disfavoring plaintiffs.

The program featured a presentation of highlights of the study and a panel discussion of its implications, with the following speakers:

• Introduction, Judith C. Appelbaum, ACS Director of Programs
• Moderator, Judge Nathaniel R. Jones, Blank Rome LLP; and former Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day; and former General Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
• Cyrus Mehri, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
• Stewart J. Schwab, Allan R. Tessler Dean and Professor of Law, Cornell University

For video and the full text of the study, click here.