Jurisprudence Commons^™

Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry

Washington Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment on account of sex. Courts have historically failed to extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ+ people. However, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County changed this. Bostock explicitly extended Title VII’s protections against workplace discrimination to “homosexual” and “transgender” people, reasoning that it is impossible to discriminate against an employee for being gay or transgender without taking the employee’s sex into account. While Bostock is a win for LGBTQ+ rights, the opinion leaves several questions unanswered. The reasoning in …

Pursuing Diversity: From Education To Employment, Amy L. Wax

All Faculty Scholarship

A central pillar of the Supreme Court’s educational affirmative-action jurisprudence is that the pedagogical benefits of being educated with students from diverse backgrounds are sufficiently “compelling” to justify some degree of race-conscious selection in university admissions.

This essay argues that the blanket permission to advance educational diversity, defensible or not, should not be extended to employment. The purpose of the workplace is not pedagogical. Rather, employees are hired and paid to do a job, deliver a service, produce a product, and complete specified tasks efficiently and effectively. Whether race-conscious practices for the purpose of creating a more diverse workforce will …

Title Vii: Legal Protection Against Sexual Harassment, Arthur J. Marinelli Jr.

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this article is to examine early case law and recent court decisions involving sexual harassment, especially Meritor v. Vinson. The article will discuss employer avoidance of liability under the EEOC guidelines and will urge employers to implement steps to investigate, prohibit, and sensitize supervisors to sexual harassment.

United Auto Workers V. Johnson Controls, Inc.: One Small Step For Womankind, A. L. Cherry

Akron Law Review

In United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with the task of deciding whether women's childbearing capacity could be used to limit women's job choices and opportunities within certain industrial/ manufacturing fields. The Court decided that the ability to bear children could be used to so limit women, but only if the employer met a high standard. In Johnson Controls, employees who worked in a toxic work environment sought a determination that their employer's fetal protection policy discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act …

A Comparative Analysis Of Unconscious And Institutional Discrimination In The United States And Britain, Leland Ware

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Formalism And Employer Liability Under Title Vii, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

Most lawyers, law professors, and judges are familiar with two standard critiques of formalism in legal reasoning. One is the unacknowledged-policymaking critique. This critique argues that formalist reasoning purports to be above judicial policymaking but instead simply hides the policy decisions offstage. The other is the false-determinacy critique. This critique observes that formalist reasoning purports to reduce decision costs in the run of cases by sorting cases into defined categories, but argues that instead of going away the difficult questions of application migrate to the choice of the category in which to place a particular case.

Who's The Boss? A Distinction Without A Difference, Lakisha A. Davis

Barry Law Review

This case note provides the factual background of Vance v. Ball State and briefly summarizes the legal precedent behind the decision. It analyzes the opinion of the Court, suggesting that the decision severely limited the essential protections against workplace harassment provided by Title VII, consequently making it more difficult for employees to prove employer vicarious liability for workplace harassment.

Will Eeoc V. Waffle House, Inc. Signal The Beginning Of The End For Mandatory Arbitration Agreements In The Employment Context? , Marc A. Altenbernt

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Since the inception of several employment and discrimination statutes, arbitration has grown exponentially as an alternative for the adjudication of employment disputes. The Supreme Court has traditionally held that statutory claims are indeed arbitrable pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). In an effort to end employment discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). In order to adequately effect this calling, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") was created as the Act's primary enforcement mechanism. While arbitration agreements under the FAA and …

Mega-Cases, Diversity, And The Elusive Goal Of Workplace Reform, Nancy Levit

Nancy Levit

Employment discrimination class action suits are part of a new wave of structural reform litigation. Like their predecessors - the school desegregation cases in the 1950s, the housing and voting inequalities cases in the 1960s, prison conditions suits in the 1970s, and environmental lawsuits since then - these are systemic challenges to major institutions affecting large segments of the public. This article explores the effectiveness of various employment discrimination remedies in reforming workplace cultures, promoting corporate accountability, and implementing real diversity.

Reviewing the architecture and aftermath of consent decrees in five major employment discrimination cases - the cases against Shoney's, …

Critical Race Praxis: Race Theory And Political Lawyering Practice In Post-Civil Rights America, Eric K. Yamamoto

Michigan Law Review

At the end of the twentieth century, the legal status of Chinese Americans in San Francisco's public schools turns on a requested judicial finding that a desegregation order originally designed to dismantle a system subordinating nonwhites now invidiously discriminates against Chinese Americans. Brian Ho, Patrick Wong, and Hilary Chen, plaintiffs in Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District, represent "all [16,000] children of Chinese descent" eligible to attend San Francisco's public schools. Their high-profile suit, filed by small-firm attorneys, challenges the validity of a 1983 judicial consent decree desegregating San Francisco's schools. Approved in response to an NAACP class action …