In 2015, South Africa withdrew from the International Criminal Court asserting United Nation’s Security Council bias in referring only African cases (Strydom October 15, 2015; Duggard 2013) and the United Kingdom reiterated a pledge to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights, asserting that the court impinges on British sovereignty (Watt 2015). Both are examples of extraterritorial courts which are an important part of regional and global jurisprudence. To contribute to our understanding of the relationship between states and extraterritorial courts, I examine arguably the first and best example of an extraterritorial court, namely the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). Drawing on 50 British Commonwealth states, this dissertation explores the factors influencing the decision to accede to an extraterritorial court and why some states subsequently opt to sever ties. I build on Dahl’s theory (1957) that the nation’s highest court interacts with the governing coalition and, for the most part, serves as an ally and uphold its policies. I argue that that governing coalition wants the final appellate court that they most expect to be an ally and extend this expectation to extraterritorial courts. As a result, the governing coalition looks at the court more critically. States may change or abolish the jurisdiction of the court if it undermines or seems likely to undermine state policy. Examining this phenomenon across the British Commonwealth provides comparative insights into how governing coalitions may view extraterritorial courts.

The purpose of this research was to examine the patterns and themes of litigation in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination cases charged under the theory of disparate impact. Specifically, this study used Computer Assisted Legal Research (CALR) to identify and review all U.S. Appellate Court ADA disparate impact cases as reported by Westlaw, a commercial electronic case law reporting system owned by Thomson Reuters. This study used a two-step, mixed methods approach to analyze the data relevant to the research questions and sub-questions. First, the researcher employed content analysis (Hall & Wright, 2008) to identify and characterize patterns and trends of litigation in all reported U.S. Appellate Court ADA cases charged under the theory of disparate impact from 1992 through 2012. Cases were analyzed chronologically, and variables included number of published and unpublished cases, distribution of jurisdiction, distribution of ADA titles, EEOC involvement, case fact patterns, and characteristics of charging and opposing parties. Frequency analyses were conducted on these data. Second, the researcher identified a subset of the ADA disparate impact cases analyzed in the first step: Title I, or employment discrimination cases. Qualitative analysis employing the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used to identify and characterize patterns and themes of the judicial opinions in the Title I disparate impact cases. The researcher developed a framework for analysis based on a review of the literature of the sociopolitical perspective of disability to guide the analysis of the judicial opinions in the subset of disparate impact cases. The results of the frequency analyses conducted on these data revealed four trends: (a) Precedent, (b) Circuit and Judge Effects, (c) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Successes, and (d) Sutton Case Effect. The results of the qualitative analysis of the text of the judicial opinions produced four themes and three relationships among the themes. The four themes were accommodation(s); workplace culture, norms, and policies; judicial process; and policy space. The three relationships were gap-filling, weighing and balancing, and maintaining status quo versus effecting social change. The themes and relationships are depicted in a concept map that visually displays the conceptual framework revealed in the study. The findings in this study may inform disability and rehabilitation scholars about ADA disparate impact cases, a body of law about which little is known. The patterns and trends identified in ADA Title I disparate impact cases may provide information about the types of policies and practices that are most frequently litigated. Rehabilitation practitioners may be able to use the results of this research to develop education and outreach strategies for employers on best practices for hiring, accommodating, and promoting employees with disabilities. Because the workplace policies and procedures identified in the cases that comprise this study are neutral on their face rather than intentionally discriminatory, employers may benefit from information that assists them in evaluating their policies and procedures proactively, which may avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. Finally, workplace policies and procedures that fairly represent the essential functions of the job and are applied uniformly to workers with and without disabilities will contribute to a more diverse workforce.

The manner by which courts view performance appraisals in relation to the outcome of case is certainly a topic worthy of discussion. Utilizing the framework used within the work of Werner and Bolino (1997), the following study was able to accomplish two main goals: (1) update the information of Werner and Bolino (1997) by evaluating modern cases, and (2) to evaluate new data regarding age discrimination utilizing the same framework as Werner and Bolino (1997). Utilizing chi-square analysis to test all of the hypotheses, it was demonstrated that there was statistical significance in performance appraisals with the presence of a job analysis regarding court outcome. Other variables such as appraisal basis (trait, behavioral, MBO), triangulation, and appraisal frequency did not have any statistical significance. Out of the six new hypotheses tested, all showed statistical significance except for one. These hypotheses showcased the immense differences in how different forms of discrimination are viewed by the court even with respect to the performance appraisal. This was especially true with age discrimination in comparison to every other form of discrimination. In conclusion the following study accomplished its two main goals by displaying consistency with Werner and Bolino’s work and successfully evaluating new variables to support the hypotheses that involve differences between different forms of discrimination and the outcome of the court case.