WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT II(Mandatory)
Due: WednesdayFebruary27 @ 11:00 a.m.
This exercise is an example of a task litigators often face in practice: trying to derive general principles from a set of specific points made in a group of cases. Discussion Question 25 addressed the Supreme Court’s list of factors to consider in determining the intent of a government entity. For this assignment, based on the cases involving private defendants (Sorenson, Marable, Asbury, Pinchback, Cato, and Frazier),you will develop alist (with citations) of the kinds of evidence that seem to be important in proving whether or not a private defendant intentionally discriminated.
Your submission should be 4-6 double-spaced typed pages long. For general instructions for all assignments, see Information Memo #1. Directions specific to this assignment are provided below. For this assignment, you will work in assigned teams of three students, listed below.
In this assignment, I am looking for you to do more than simply list of specific bits of evidence. Instead, try to generalize from the specific evidence discussed in the cases to create categories of evidence that you could use to guide the discovery process in a future case. As a rough guide to the appropriate level of generality, you can look at the categories from Arlington Heightslisted in Rizzo.
Your work product should take the form of a numbered annotated list. For each category you include, briefly explain why it is a useful type of evidence. Then provide support in the form of one or more examples from the cases with citations to the relevant pages in the course materials. Your examples should consist of specific pieces of evidence that fall within the category that tend either to prove or disprove discriminatory intent. You may also include any direct quote from one of the cases that you think is helpful to demonstrate the importance of the category. Citations to the cases should simply include a short form of the case name and the relevant page in the course materials (e.g., Asbury 95;Frazier101).
Below, I have drafted a portion of an answer using Rizzo(for a parallel project regarding government defendants) that is in a form I would find acceptable:
4.Departure from normal procedural sequence: The failure by a government body to follow its usual procedures may indicate that it is trying to cover up actions taken with a discriminatory purpose. The body should at least have to explain the deviation. Examples:
- City gave contractor contradictory instructions and required it to meet regulations that it did not usually enforce. (Rizzo 88).
- City did not use normal procedure for terminating project. “The procedure adopted would seem to be especially significant where the ‘normal’ procedure not employed would have required the City to reveal its reasons for making its decision at public hearings.” (Rizzo88).
TEAMS FOR ASSIGNMENT II
(NAME OF COORDINATOR IN BOLD)
Abrams, Erik
Booher, Sam
Haas, Kevin
Abramson, Carly
Branscum, Chris
Hanks, Taylor
Amar, Hari
Bricken, Hilary
Hart, Thom
Aoraha, John
Brown, David
Isrow, Jordan
Arango-Chaffin, Angela
Brumby, Charlie
Janowitz, Allison
Bakalova, Sofya
Cavalcanto, Todd
Johnson, Joline
Blankstein, Dee
Clementi, Chris
Kessler, David
Coppolecchia, Liz
Kilgore, Aileen
Occhiogrosso, Gianna
Daghbandan, Nema
Kligler, David
Ortiz, Mel
DeLaRosa, Miguel
Kubicz, PJ
Parrott, Kim
Elizée, Patricia
Langton, Sean
Peles, Netali
Glazer-Esh, Esther
Lea, Kate
Phillips, Chris
Goldblatt, Brett
Leahey, Bobby
Pike, Betsy
Gonzalez, Louis
Lobel, Sarah
Reese, Michael
Mastro, Kyle
Rodriguez, Jose
Tamborra, Elizabeth
Mastrucci, Michael
Rosenbaum, David
Theobald, John
McSweeney, Jaime
Rossknecht, Tim
Thurswell, Lindsey
Meanley, Brian
Salamone, Kim
Vesey, Adam
Nechvatal, Jennifer
Schwarz, Daniel
Weinger, Stacey
Nicholson, William
Silva, Peter
Whittler, Erica
OBrien, Russ
Sullivan, Patrick
Zheng, Lily