Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Civil Rights and Discrimination

Title vii

University of Maine School of Law

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Never On Sunday: Workplace Religious Freedom In The New Millennium, Marianne C. Delpo Feb 2018

Never On Sunday: Workplace Religious Freedom In The New Millennium, Marianne C. Delpo

Maine Law Review

Imagine being fired for refusing to sing Happy Birthday. Now imagine collecting $53,000 for that firing--from a waitressing job. Science fiction? Not exactly. Try religious discrimination in the workplace--1990s style. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has long proscribed such treatment, but lawsuits claiming this type of workplace discrimination were relatively rare for many years. Now claims are on the rise, up 18% over the past five years, and the substance of religious discrimination claims is changing to include some unprecedented fact patterns. This new activity in employment discrimination law, as well as the growing likelihood that …


Mullin V. Ratheon Co.: The Threatened Vitality Of Disparate Impact Under The Adea, Miles F. Archer Feb 2018

Mullin V. Ratheon Co.: The Threatened Vitality Of Disparate Impact Under The Adea, Miles F. Archer

Maine Law Review

Seven years after Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and four years after the enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the ADEA), the Supreme Court, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., enunciated the doctrine of disparate impact as a means of establishing liability under Title VII. Since that time, the doctrine has evolved considerably and its application and contours have been redefined by the Court as well as by Congress. Within this evolution there has been a debate among the courts and commentators as to whether the doctrine may …


Job Segregation, Gender Blindness, And Employee Agency, Tracy E. Higgins Dec 2017

Job Segregation, Gender Blindness, And Employee Agency, Tracy E. Higgins

Maine Law Review

Almost forty years after the enactment of Title VII, women's struggle for equality in the workplace continues. Although Title VII was intended to “break[] down old patterns of segregation and hierarchy,” the American workplace remains largely gender-segregated. Indeed, more than one-third of all women workers are employed in occupations in which the percentage of women exceeds 80%. Even in disciplines in which women have made gains, top status (and top paying) jobs remain male-dominated while the lower status jobs are filled by women. This pattern of gender segregation, in turn, accounts for a substantial part of the persistent wage gap …


Gender Typing In Stereo: The Transgender Dilemma In Employment Discrimination, Richard F. Storrow Dec 2017

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 Dec 2017

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 …