Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Brief For New Ways Ministry Et Al. As Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff, Koenke V. Saint Joseph University, Leslie C. Griffin
Brief For New Ways Ministry Et Al. As Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff, Koenke V. Saint Joseph University, Leslie C. Griffin
Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Miguel H. Diaz Et A. As Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Leslie C. Griffin, Marci A. Hamilton
Brief For Miguel H. Diaz Et A. As Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Leslie C. Griffin, Marci A. Hamilton
Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
The Professional Responsibility Case For Valid And Nondiscriminatory Bar Exams, Joan W. Howarth
The Professional Responsibility Case For Valid And Nondiscriminatory Bar Exams, Joan W. Howarth
Scholarly Works
Title VII protects against workplace discrimination in part through the scrutiny of employment tests whose results differ based on race, gender, or ethnicity. Such tests are said to have a disparate impact, and their use is illegal unless their validity can be established. Validity means that the test is job-related and measures what it purports to measure. Further, under Title VII, even a valid employment test with a disparate impact could be struck down if less discriminatory alternatives exist.
Licensing tests, including bar exams, have been found to be outside these Title VII protections. But the nondiscrimination values that animate …
Feminist Perspectives On Bostock V. Clay County, Georgia, Ann C. Mcginley, Nicole Porter, Danielle Weatherby, Ryan Nelson, Pamela Wilkins, Catherine Archibald
Feminist Perspectives On Bostock V. Clay County, Georgia, Ann C. Mcginley, Nicole Porter, Danielle Weatherby, Ryan Nelson, Pamela Wilkins, Catherine Archibald
Scholarly Works
This jointly-authored essay is a conversation about the Supreme Court’s recent and groundbreaking decision (Bostock v. Clayton County) that held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination based on sex, and therefore prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While many scholars are writing about this case, we are doing something unique. We are analyzing this decision from feminist perspectives. We are the editors and four of the authors of a book recently published by Cambridge University Press: Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Employment Discrimination Opinions. This book contains fifteen Supreme Court and Courts …