The Silicon Valley Ellen Pao trial brought to the forefront once again the changing nature of discrimination in the workplace with its focus on a culture of bias and the prevalence of unconscious discriminatory behavior. This case is only the most recent high-profile example. There is an emerging consensus among scholars that the concept of “intent” in disparate treatment employment discrimination should be broadened to encapsulate more flexible notions including implicit bias, negligent discrimination, and structural discrimination. These scholars argue convincingly that psychological research demonstrates that implicit bias and reliance on ingrained stereotypes is, to some extent, natural to human decision-making processes. As a result, bias in the workplace operates at both an overt, knowing level but also beneath the surface and, at times, without the conscious knowledge of the decision-makers themselves.However, despite extensive discussion of implicit bias in the legal literature, few, if any, scholars have considered alterations to liability and compensation schemes as a result of the broader meanings of intent. This article proposes looking to criminal law as a practical and theoretical model for an amendment to Title VII that would include gradations of intent with concomitant gradations in liability. The Model Penal Code presents an orderly and well-thought-out approach to intent, or mens rea, and the gradations of intent that support a finding of guilt. In addition, theory and policy supporting criminal law’s linkage of intent and liability are remarkably analogous to Title VII’s goal of elimination of discrimination. As a result, this article contends that a careful and measured consideration of criminal law’s approach to liability is instructive.Drawing on the extensive literature on flexible intent and criminal law theories of retributivism and consequentialism, this article proposes a statutory expansion of the definition of disparate treatment discrimination under Title VII with an adjustment in the liability regime based on the level of employer intent. We contend that a clear link between intent level and damages constitutes an attractive balancing of employer and employee needs that should spur this crucial statutory change. A statutory amendment to Title VII that both broadens the meaning of “intent” for disparate treatment claims but also limits liability based on the level of intent offers a compromise position that expands the application of discrimination law to meet changing workplace norms and a theoretically and emotionally satisfying means of accomplishing that change.

中文翻译：

---

就业歧视的意图和责任

硅谷Ellen Pao案的审判再次凸显了工作场所歧视的不断变化的性质，其重点是偏见文化和无意识歧视行为的普遍存在。这种情况只是最近的引人注目的例子。学者之间已经出现了一个新的共识，即应扩大在不同待遇，就业歧视中的“意图”概念，以囊括更灵活的概念，包括内隐偏见，过失歧视和结构性歧视。这些学者令人信服地指出，心理学研究表明，隐性偏见和对根深蒂固的刻板印象的依赖在某种程度上是人类决策过程的自然现象。结果，工作场所的偏见既在公开的，已知的层面上起作用，又在表面之下，有时甚至是 然而，尽管对法律文献中的隐性偏见进行了广泛的讨论，但很少有（如果有的话）学者考虑到因意图更广泛的含义而对责任和赔偿计划进行的变更。本文建议将刑法作为第七章修正案的实用和理论模型，其中包括意图等级和相应的责任等级。《刑法典》提出了一种有序且经过深思熟虑的意图或精神意图方法，以及意图有罪的意图等级。此外，支持刑法的意图和责任联系的理论和政策明显类似于第七章消除歧视的目标。结果是，本文认为，仔细，审慎地考虑刑法对赔偿责任的方法具有指导意义。本文利用关于分配意图主义和结果主义的灵活意图和刑法理论的广泛文献，提出了标题下对不同待遇歧视定义的法定扩展七，根据雇主意图水平调整责任制度。我们认为，意图水平和损害赔偿之间的明确联系构成了雇主和雇员需求之间的一种有吸引力的平衡，应促使这一重要的法定变更。