English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Current equal protection law provides inadequate protection to quasi-suspect classes' alleging that the burdens of a facially neutral law fall on them with a disproportionate impact.2 Under the present approach to analyzing disproportionate impact claims raised by either a suspect or a quasi-suspect class, an equal protection violation is established if the plaintiff shows not only that the disproportionate impact in fact occurred, but also that it was imposed with a discriminatory intent.3 This approach will be referred to as disproportionate impact analysis. Although the Supreme Court has expressed a willingness to examine both direct and circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent,4 it has refused to rely on purely circumstantial evidence.5 The intent requirement and the standards for satisfying it have been developed in cases involving claims by suspect classes.6 That

Quasi-Suspect Classes and Proof of Discriminatory Intent: A New Model