IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/lawarc/43bz2_v1.html

A Wrinkle in Title VII: Rigid Evidentiary Requirements and Inadequate Causation Tests Trammel Women's Sex-Plus-Age Claims

Author

Listed:
  • Cook, Lindsey

Abstract

This Comment examines the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC and argues that, although the court recognized sex-plus-age claims under Title VII, older women remain disadvantaged by rigid comparator requirements and causation standards. The Comment contends that these doctrines make it difficult for women to prove discrimination based on the intersection of sex and age, particularly in appearance-driven industries where older male comparators are often unavailable. It concludes that the current framework limits the practical value of sex-plus-age claims and leaves many older women without an effective remedy for workplace discrimination. [This abstract was written by Microsoft Copilot, a generative artificial intelligence.]

Suggested Citation

  • Cook, Lindsey, 2026. "A Wrinkle in Title VII: Rigid Evidentiary Requirements and Inadequate Causation Tests Trammel Women's Sex-Plus-Age Claims," LawArchive 43bz2_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:43bz2_v1
    DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/43bz2_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6ab58561b957e2e1592c9aaa/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31228/osf.io/43bz2_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:43bz2_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.