The Proof of intentional discrimination in Argentina’s Supreme Court jurisprudence. How to improve its regulation?
Downloads
Abstract
In discrimination cases, proving the discriminatory intent can be hard. Inspired by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Argentina created a rule that tries to make the task easier for plaintiffs. However, there are relevant differences in the way civil procedure is regulated in both countries. Particularly, the opportunities to introduce evidence and readjust the pleadings are more limited in the Argentinian context. This diminishes the rule's potential to fulfill its goal, namely to help plaintiffs to prove their case. After delving into the specifics of the problem, this article aims at providing two alternative solutions. First, to better define the burdens of proof allocated to each of the parties. Second, to reassess some aspects of Argentinian civil procedure.Keywords
Discrimination, presumption, burden of proof, standards of proof, discovery.References
Agencia de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea y Consejo de Europa. (2018). Manual de legislación europea contra la discriminación. Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/handbook_non_discri_law_spa.pdf
Aguiló-Regla, J. (2018). Las presunciones en el Derecho. Anuario de filosofía del derecho, 34, p. 201- 227. http://hdl.handle.net/10045/86475
Allen, R. J. (2014). Burdens of proof. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(3-4), p. 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu005
Baumann, P. T. B., Brown, J. O. y Subrin, S. N. (1991). Substance in the Shadow of Procedure: The Integration of Substantive and Procedural Law in Title VII Cases. Boston College Law Review, 33, p. 211-303, https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol33/iss2/1/
Dei Vecchi, D. (2019). El carácter presuntivo de las presunciones absolutas. Revus: Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Lawus, 38. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.5333
Eyer, K. (2019). The Return of the Technical McDonnell Douglas Paradigm. Washington Law Review, 94, p. 967-1017. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol94/iss3/2/
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2007). La valoración racional de la prueba. Marcial Pons.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2021). Prueba sin convicción: Estándares de prueba y debido proceso. Marcial Pons.
Finkelstein, M. O. (2009). Basic Concepts of Probability and Statistics in the Law. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b105519
Gascón Abellán, M. (2010). Los hechos en el derecho: bases argumentales de la prueba (3.a ed.). Marcial Pons.
Hazard, G. C. y Taruffo, M. (1993). American Civil Procedure: An introduction. Yale University Press.
Hitters, J. M. (2008). Hechos nuevos, hechos sobrevinientes, nuevos hechos y nuevos documentos. La Ley, 998.
James, F. y Hazard, G. C. (1985). Civil Procedure (3rd Edition). Little, Brown and Company.
Malamud, D. C. (1995). The Last Minuet: Disparate Treatment after Hicks. Michigan Law Review, 93(8), p. 2229-2324, https://doi.org/10.2307/1289935
Mendonca, D. (1998). Presunciones. Doxa: Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA1998.21.1.05
Palacio, L. E. y Alvarado Velloso, A. (1994). Código Procesal Civil y Comercial de la Nación: Explicado y anotado jurisprudencial y bibliográficamente (Vol. 80). Rubinzal Culzoni Editores.
Sperino, S. F. (2018). McDonnell Douglas: The Most Important Case in Employment Discrimination Law. Bloomberg Law.
Subrin, S. N., Minow, M. L., Brodin, M. S., Main, T. O. y Lahav, A. (2021). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wolters Kluwer.
Taruffo, M. (2008). La prueba. Marcial Pons.
Ullman-Margalit, E. (1983). On Presumption. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(3), p. 143-163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i3.22699Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Alejo Joaquín Giles, Olivia Minatta
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.