Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Gender Typing In Stereo: The Transgender Dilemma In Employment Discrimination, Richard F. Storrow
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 …
Hiv And The Ada: What Is A Direct Threat?, Dawn-Marie Harmon
Hiv And The Ada: What Is A Direct Threat?, Dawn-Marie Harmon
Maine Law Review
Anne, a surgical technician at a local hospital, recently learned that she was HIV-positive. She works in the emergency room and, as a part of her job, she hands surgical instruments to doctors performing emergency surgery. It is a fast paced and unpredictable environment. Her hands often come in contact with sharp instruments. Although Anne has never put her hands into a patient's body cavity, there is a remote possibility that she may need to do so in the future. There is always a possibility, however small, that she will cut herself and come into blood-to-blood contact with a doctor …
Jespersen V. Harrah's Operating Co.: Employer Appearance Standards And The Promotion Of Gender Stereotypes, Hillary J. Bouchard
Jespersen V. Harrah's Operating Co.: Employer Appearance Standards And The Promotion Of Gender Stereotypes, Hillary J. Bouchard
Maine Law Review
In Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Harrah’s Casino (Harrah’s) gave Darlene Jespersen (Jespersen), a female employee, thirty days to comply with the new mandatory makeup requirement the business imposed on its female beverage service employees. Jespersen refused, thirty days passed, and Harrah’s immediately terminated her. After unsuccessfully seeking administrative relief with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Jespersen filed a lawsuit against Harrah’s in federal district court. The claim alleged “disparate treatment sex discrimination” by Harrah’s in violation of Title VII. Subsequently, Harrah’s moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. The court found that Harrah’s employee …