Law Commons^™

From Queen Bees And Wannabes To Worker Bees: Why Gender Considerations Should Inform The Emerging Law Of Workplace Bullying, Kerri Lynn Stone

Kerri Stone

This Article submits that the documented phenomenon of workplace bullying operates to stymie the retention and advancement of women in the workplace Research documented in books like Queen Bees and Wannabes shows that as early as the schoolyard, males and females tend to socialize differently, engage in and resolve conflict with peers differently, and absorb bullying behavior differently. Girls often believe or are taught to believe that direct conflict or confrontation is unpalatable and tend to employ more passive aggressive means of engagement with foes. They often internalize and repress feelings that boys are more likely to express. Viewing the …

Pushback: Title Vii Takes On Hobby Lobby, Carole Okolowicz

DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law

In Hobby Lobby, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a for-profit corporation could avoid the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that it pay for coverage of female contraception in the employee health plan due to the employer’s religious objections to birth control. In so deciding, the Court allowed the employer to discriminate against its female employees in their employee benefits. Such a decision raises the possibility of a claim of sex discrimination by the corporation’s female employees under Title VII. This article explores the main issues and pitfalls in such a claim.

The two main issues with the possible …

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.

Transsexual, Transgender, Trans: Reading Judicial Nomenclature In Title Vii Cases, Kris Franklin, Sarah Chinn

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

The Price Of Price Waterhouse: How Title Vii Reduces The Lives Of Lgbt Americans To Sex And Gender Stereotypes, Drew Culler

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

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

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

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 …