Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law and Gender
Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry
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 …
More Than Fifty Years After The Enactment Of Federal Laws Forbidding Discrimination In Pay, The Wage Disparity Based On Sex Continues: Focusing On The Circuit Courts’ Differing Interpretations Of “Factors Other Than Sex”, Audrey K. Hurt
Mississippi College Law Review
The broad scope of this fourth affirmative defense available to employers under the EPA and Title VII allows for inconsistency in its interpretation and is responsible, at least in part, for the continued existence of wage discrimination. Without a prescribed means of application— specifically, a stricter means of application—employers are more readily absolved from liability under the FOTS defense. The best solution to this problem is for Congress to adopt a more stringent approach to the FOTS defense under the Equal Pay Act of 1963—an approach which would apply to Title VII, as well. However, with little headway being made …