Law Commons^™

Gender Discrimination And Wrongful Termination During The Covid-19 Pandemic And The Age Of The At-Home Workplace, Lauren Saxe

Human Rights Brief

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Unilateral Burdens And Third-Party Harms: Abortion Conscience Laws As Policy Outliers, Nadia Sawicki

Indiana Law Journal

Most conscience laws establish nearly absolute protections for health care providers unwilling to participate in abortion. Providers’ rights to refuse—and relatedly, their immunity from civil liability, employment discrimination, and other adverse consequences—are often unqualified, even in situations where patients are likely to be harmed. These laws impose unilateral burdens on third parties in an effort to protect the rights of conscientious refusers. As such, they are outliers in the universe of federal and state anti-discrimination and religious freedom statutes, all of which strike a more even balance between individual rights and the prevention of harm to third parties. This Article …

Modernizing Discrimination Law: The Adoption Of An Intersectional Lens, Marisa K. Sanchez

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Necessary Coverage For Authentic Identity: How Bostock Made Title Vii The Strongest Protection Against Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Denial Of Gender-Affirming Medical Care., Jennifer A. Knackert

Marquette Law Review

In June 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII

protection from discrimination on the basis of sex extended to LGBTQ+

employees. The Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia decision dealt with three

separate cases where LGBTQ+ employees had been fired from their jobs based

on either their sexual orientation or gender identity. While the shared issue in

these cases had to do with employee termination, the textualist argument

presented by the Court leads many legal scholars to believe that the holding

would be applicable to other areas of employment discrimination covered by

Title VII such as employer-sponsored healthcare …

Title Vii And The Unenvisaged Case: Is Anti-Lgbtq Discrimination Unlawful Sex Discrimination, Ronald Turner

Indiana Law Journal

As discussed herein, courts and individual judges recognizing or not finding actionable Title VII anti-LGBTQ14 claims have offered different rationales in support of their conflicting positions, including three justifications discussed in this project: (1) the meaning of Title VII’s “because of sex” prohibition, (2) the Supreme Court’s and circuit courts’ construction of the “because of sex” provision in the context of sex stereotyping and gender nonconformity discrimination as applied to the anti- LGBTQ question, and (3) associational discrimination theory. Claim-recognizing jurists have looked to Title VII’s text, Supreme Court and circuit court precedent, and the views of the Equal Employment …

The Future Of Disability Rights Protections For Transgender People, Kevin M. Barry, Jennifer L. Levi

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Conflicting Filing Periods For A Constructive Discharge Claim: Which One Is Better?, Aditi Kumar

Labor & Employment Law Forum

No abstract provided.

The Power To Retaliate: How Nassar Strips Away The Protections Of Title Vii, Catherine Donnelly

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

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.

The Gay Accent, Gender, And Title Vii Employment Discrimination, Ryan Castle

Seattle University Law Review

While race, religion, ethnicity, and sex will always remain salient social issues in our nation, sexual orientation is currently at the forefront of our national debate and will likely not abate in the foreseeable future. Federal courts, for example, struggle in differentiating sex, gender, and sexuality when adjudicating Title VII employment discrimination claims. Because Title VII does not protect employees from sexual orientation-based discrimination, plaintiffs who are or are perceived to be of a sexual minority have difficulty proving a valid sex-based discrimination claim in federal court. This difficulty arises because one cannot perceive sex, gender, and sexuality without muddling …