Law Commons^™

Gender Typing In Stereo: The Transgender Dilemma In Employment Discrimination, Richard F. Storrow

Maine Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits discrimination against men because they are men and against women because they are women. This familiar characterization of the Act has been quoted in dozens of sex discrimination cases to support a narrow view of who is protected against sex discrimination in this country. When transsexuals file suit, “[e]mployment discrimination jurisprudence at both the federal and state levels ... captures transsexuals in a discourse of exclusion from social participation. This wide net, using a remarkably refined system of semantic manipulations, snags all claims launched by transsexuals and reveals …

Sex, Allies And Bfoqs: The Case For Not Allowing Foreign Corporations To Violate Title Vii In The United States, Keith Sealing

Maine Law Review

The extent to which foreign corporations as well as their domestic subsidiaries can discriminate against American employees on the basis of sex, age, religion, and national origin in a manner that would be acceptable under their own laws and customs but inimical to American law is currently determined by a muddled jumble of circuit court opinions interpreting a “[w]e express no view” Supreme Court footnote. As a result, American victims of sexual discrimination have much less protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the discriminating actor is a foreign corporation or its domestic subsidiary than …

Congressional Power To Regulate Sex Discrimination: The Effect Of The Supreme Court's "New Federalism", Calvin Massey

Maine Law Review

Congressional power to prevent and remedy sex discrimination in employment has been founded almost entirely upon the commerce power and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” the equal protection guarantee. The commerce power has enabled Congress to prohibit private sex discrimination in employment, and the combination of the commerce and enforcement powers has enabled Congress to prohibit such sex discrimination by public employers. From the late 1930s until the early 1990s the doctrinal architecture of these powers was relatively stable, even if statutory action to realize the promise of a nondiscriminatory …

There And Back Again? Police Reforms Through The Prism Of The Recruitment Decisions In The High Court And The Court Of Appeal, Festus M. Kinoti

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Amicus Curiae Brief Of Equality Ohio In Support Of Intervenor Urging Reversal, Doron M. Kalir, Kenneth J. Kowalski

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Title VII’s plain language bars discharge of “any individual”—whether transgender or not—“because of such individual’s . . . sex.” It applies whenever employers take gender into account in making employment decisions. It is undisputed that the employer in this case based his decision to terminate Ms. Stephens solely on sex-based considerations. To be sure, he could have terminated Ms. Stephens for a wide array of reasons—tardiness, failure to perform, disciplinary issues—or for no reason at all. Under those circumstances, such termination—even of a transgender person—would not be “because of such individual’s sex.” But that is not the case here. Here, …

Frontiers Of Sex Discrimination Law, Jessica A. Clarke

Michigan Law Review

Review Gender Nonconformity and the Law by Kimberly A. Yuracko.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Glbtq Legal Advocates & Defenders Et Al. In Support Of Respondent In Gloucester County School Board V. G.G., Sjc 16-273, Jennifer Levi, Shannon P. Minter, Dean Richlin, Amanda Hainsworth, Rachel Hutchinson, Emily J. Nash

Faculty Scholarship

Amici brief submitted by the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Foley Hoag, LLP. to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., by His Next Friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm. The brief argues that the Court should reject the school board’s claim that privacy interests justify its discriminatory policy for three reasons. First, there is no basis for the creation of a new privacy right that justifies excluding transgender students from shared restrooms. Second, nothing in Title IX or its regulations supports the School …

Supreme Court Denies Review In Gay Rights Case, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Back To Basics: Excavating The Sex Discrimination Roots Of Campus Sexual Assault, Deborah Brake

Articles

This article, written for a symposium devoted to the legacy of celebrated Lady Vols coach, Pat Summit, connects the dots between Title IX’s regulation of campus sexual assault and the law’s overarching goal of expanding women’s access to leadership. Beginning with a discussion of how sexual objectification and harassment obstruct women’s paths to leadership, the article situates campus sexual assault as an important part of Title IX’s overarching agenda to promote equal educational opportunity. Although liberal feminism and dominance feminism are often discussed as competing theoretical frames for understanding and challenging gender inequality, they are best seen as complementary and …

Comparing The Effects Of Judges' Gender And Arbitrators' Gender In Sex Discrimination Cases And Why It Matters, Pat K. Chew

Articles

Empirical research substantiates that the judges’ gender makes a difference in sex discrimination and sexual harassment court cases. The author’s study of arbitration of sex discrimination cases administered by the American Arbitration Association between 2010 and 2014, however, finds that this judges’ “gender effect” does not occur. Namely, there is no significant difference in the decision-making patterns of female and male arbitrators as indicated by case outcomes.

The author proposes that characteristics of arbitrators, the arbitration process, and arbitration cases all combine to help explain the gender effect differences. Further, she suggests that this analysis reveals concerns about the arbitration …

Same-Sex Sex And Immutable Traits: Why Obergefell V. Hodges Clears A Path To Protecting Gay And Lesbian Employees From Workplace Discrimination Under Title Vii, Matthew W. Green Jr.

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This article is set forth in five parts. Part II is largely descriptive and focuses on two aspects of Obergefell: (1) the Court's clarification that adult, private, consensual, same-sex sexual intimacy is a fundamental right, protected by the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and (2) the Court's recognition that leading mental health and medical groups consider sexual orientation to be immutable. Part III examines how courts and the EEOC have treated sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII and contains a normative discussion which argues—consistent with the position of other commentators, some courts, and the EEOC—that sexual orientation …