{"id":762,"date":"2018-03-23T12:00:34","date_gmt":"2018-03-23T17:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=762"},"modified":"2019-07-03T23:34:30","modified_gmt":"2019-07-04T04:34:30","slug":"perceptions-of-misperceived-race","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=762","title":{"rendered":"Perceptions of Misperceived Race"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Image by\u00a0Adrienne<\/a>,\u00a0CC BY-NC-ND 2.0<\/span><\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In recent years our federal courts have taken steps to address racial discrimination by emphasizing what has been called colorblindness<\/a>\u2013\u2013the idea that our laws should achieve racial equality by eliminating racial categories<\/a>. While this catchall solution addresses a majority of racial discrimination claims, it fails to properly address misperceived racial discrimination. In cases involving misperceived race, an individual claims that he or she has been discriminated against in some way based on the racial identity that others have imputed onto her, despite her identifying as a different race. Misperceived race cases and how courts define race has produced conflicting outcomes across different areas of law.<\/p>\n

Issues of misperceived race have been seen\u00a0predominantly in Title VII employment discrimination cases, and federal courts are currently split on how to handle this unique issue. A majority of the federal courts address misperceived race in employment discrimination by attempting to identify the plaintiff’s \u201cactual race.” If that \u201cactual\u201d racial identity does not match with the discriminators\u2019 perception of the plaintiff’s race, then courts find\u00a0there was no discrimination under Title VII<\/a>. These courts may be using \u201cactual race\u201d because Title VII lacks statutory language protecting against discrimination of perceived traits<\/a>. In contrast, a minority of federal courts have viewed discrimination of perceived race as a form of discrimination based on race, and therefore is protected by Title VII<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While the majority of federal courts using the “actual race” standard have good reasons for doing so, it is important to note that their reasoning comes into direct conflict with how immigration law defines race in asylum hearings. In asylum hearings, an asylum-seeker must show<\/a> that she has faced persecution in her country of origin or has a well-founded fear of future persecution upon return to her country of origin. This persecution must be based on at least one of five nexus factors<\/a>: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion. While neither the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) nor any federal circuit courts have specifically found that persecution based on misperceived race falls within the nexus factors required to be eligible for asylum, case law strongly implies it is included. In 1996, the BIA decided in In Re S-P-<\/a> <\/em>that \u201c[p]ersecution for \u2018imputed\u2019 grounds (e.g., where one is erroneously thought to hold particular political opinions or mistakenly believed to be a member of a religious sect) can satisfy the \u2018refugee\u2019 definition.\u201d Because courts have not reviewed the issue of persecution based on imputed grounds since In Re S-P-<\/em>, there has been no official ruling expanding persecution for imputed grounds to race. However, it is important to note that federal circuit courts have expanded In Re S-P- <\/em>to encompass the other nexus factors of religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion. Based on this, it is only a matter of time that persecution based on imputed race is accepted as plausible grounds for asylum under immigration law.<\/p>\n

When comparing these perspectives of race, the potential conflicting interpretations of race become apparent. A majority of jurisdictions look to an individual\u2019s \u201cactual race\u201d when considering employment discrimination, whereas the BIA and federal circuit courts are moving toward recognizing perceived race in asylum hearings. If the BIA does extend the imputed grounds to race, the rulings may produce the strange result that asylum hearings offer broader protection to individuals entering the U.S. than employment discrimination offers to U.S. citizens from actions occurring within the U.S. Ultimately, if this conflict occurs, it should be addressed through either the judiciary or legislature in a manner that creates more consistency between immigration and employment law.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In recent years our federal courts have taken steps to address racial discrimination by emphasizing what has been called colorblindness\u2013\u2013the idea that our laws should achieve racial equality by eliminating racial categories. While this catchall solution addresses a majority of racial discrimination claims, it fails to properly address misperceived racial discrimination. In cases involving misperceived race, an individual claims that he or she has been discriminated against in some way based on the racial identity that others have imputed onto…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"BLOG: What constitutes race-based discrimination? Asylum law and employment discrimination law may give two different answers. Check out \"Perceptions of Misperceived Race\" by Patrick Telles.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[55],"tags":[39,42,37,36,38,40,35,34,41],"class_list":["post-762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-board-member-contribution","tag-actual-race","tag-asylum-seeker","tag-bia","tag-employment-discrimination","tag-employment-law","tag-five-nexus-factors","tag-immigration","tag-racial-discrimination","tag-refugee"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-ci","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1467,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1467","url_meta":{"origin":762,"position":0},"title":"Hively v. Ivy Tech","author":"Matthew Chang","date":"June 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In the summer of 2015, same-sex couples celebrated a civil rights victory following the Supreme Court\u2019s monumental decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court recognized same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marriage, protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. While the right to marriage was immediate, this\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=48"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1435,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1435","url_meta":{"origin":762,"position":1},"title":"Data Control and Surveillance in the COVID-19 Response","author":"Brian Citro & Kat Albrecht","date":"May 26, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In a paper published last month, we argue that the emerging emphasis on digital technologies in the global tuberculosis (TB) response is ushering in a new era of data colonization and surveillance in the name of public health. We assert that, despite some promise, digital adherence technologies for TB create\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "COVID-19"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=122"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1445,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1445","url_meta":{"origin":762,"position":2},"title":"True Causes of Racial Disparities in the COVID-19 Pandemic","author":"Teri Dobbins Baxter","date":"May 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"To the shock of those unfamiliar with racial health disparities in the United States, African Americans (and other racial minorities) have been infected with, and died from, COVID-19 at a much higher rate than white Americans. The explanation given by Dr. Anthony Fauci (Director of the National Institute of Allergy\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "COVID-19"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=122"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2567,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2567","url_meta":{"origin":762,"position":3},"title":"Brnovich v. DNC: The New Test for Voting Rights","author":"Taylor Hoffman","date":"September 19, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"In the wake of the 2020 election, a wave of restrictive voting laws were enacted across the nation. And as the January 6th attack showcased the fragility of our democracy, voting rights are top of mind for many. This is why all eyes were on the Supreme Court as it\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":129,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=129","url_meta":{"origin":762,"position":4},"title":"The Seventh Circuit\u2019s Admirable but Misguided Ruling on Transgender Discrimination","author":"Adam Alexander","date":"January 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"The Seventh Circuit recently addressed discrimination issues involving a transgender student in a case of first impression, Whitaker v. Kenosha (2017), holding that a transgender student was protected by Title IX\u2019s prohibition against sex-based discrimination. The court theorized that because transgender people do not conform to traditional stereotypes associated with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":135,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=135","url_meta":{"origin":762,"position":5},"title":"Equal Protection and the Social Sciences Beyond Criminal Justice","author":"Noor Tarabishy","date":"November 7, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Following a discussion about the use of social science evidence in the criminal justice system at the Northwestern University Law Review Symposium, Professor Laura Beth Nielsen\u00a0(Northwestern, Sociology) moderated a panel that explored the varying degrees of success social science has had and the challenges faced by advocates in civil rights\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "On Campus"","block_context":{"text":"On Campus","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=17"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/47"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/762\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}