Law Commons^™

Toggle Boggle, Leah Litman

Reviews

What is sex discrimination? Or, more generally, what is discrimination?

This question has often centered around a few recurring divisions in constitutional and antidiscrimination law. One division is between intentional discrimination and disparate impact theories of liability; another break is between formal equality and substantive equality; another, related divide is between anti-classification theories of equality and anti-subordination theories.

Sexual Orientation At The Crossroads, Johan D. Van Der Vyver

Marquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County that sexual orientation is included in the concept of “sex” in the non-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is historically indefensible. The Civil Rights Act was initiated by President John F. Kennedy to combat racial discrimination in the workplace and the word “sex” was included in the Act by a “claque of Southern Congressmen” as part of a filibuster attempt to prevent its enactment. It was accepted by proponents of the Act on the instructions of President Johnson merely to avoid the …

Climate Discrimination, Duane Rudolph

Catholic University Law Review

This Article focuses on the coming legal plight of workers in the United States, who will likely face discrimination as they search for work outside their home states. The Article takes for granted that climate change will have forced those workers across state and international boundaries, a reality dramatically witnessed in the United States during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. During that environmental emergency (and the devastation it wrought), workers were forced across boundaries only to be violently discriminated against upon arrival in their new domiciles. Such discrimination is likely to recur, and it will threaten the livelihoods of …

Justice Alito's Laundry List: Highlights From Appendix C Of Bostock And A Roadmap For Lgbtq+ Legal Advocates, Peter Quinn

William & Mary Law Review

After a brief background on Bostock [v. Clayton County] in Part I, the bulk of this Note seeks to examine Justice Alito’s Bostock dissent and its potential future usefulness for LGBTQ+ advocates. Part II will analyze Justice Alito’s dissent and Appendix C, arguing that his concerns about Bostock’s consequences across other federal statutes fall into three primary categories of usefulness. The remaining Parts will survey these categories, including the “small potatoes” in Part III, the “blockbusters” in Part IV, and the “under-the-radar” areas in Part V. Part V takes particular notice of potential applications of Bostock’s …

Hair Me Out: Why Discrimination Against Black Hair Is Race Discrimination Under Title Vii, Alexis Boyd

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In May 2010, Chastity Jones sought employment as a customer service representative at Catastrophe Management Solutions (“CMS”), a claims processing company located in Mobile, Alabama. When asked for an inperson interview, Jones, a Black woman, arrived in a suit and her hair in “short dreadlocks,” or locs, a type of natural hairstyle common in the Black community. Despite being qualified for the position, Jones would later have her offer rescinded because of her hair. CMS claimed that locs “tend to get messy” and violated the “neutral” dress code and hair policy requiring employees to be “professional and business-like.” Therefore, CMS …

Panel 2 - Unreported Shortcomings Of Title Ix, Lisa Taylor, Leslie Annexstein, Elizabeth Kristein, Natasha Martin, Elizabeth Kristen

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

MODERATOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to our second panel, Unreported Shortcomings of Title IX. I’m going to start off with a quick introduction of our moderator. Today we have Dean Lisa Taylor who is our Dean for Diversity, Inclusion and Affinity Relations at WCL. She is much beloved by students of the Journal and students of WCL in general. And I know she is going to kick off a great panel. Dean Taylor, it’s all yours.

Exposing Sedated Legal Responses To Non-Consensual Pelvic Exams Under Anesthesia, Ashleigh Austel

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

When Ashley Weitz, a woman from Utah, underwent sedation for treatment of vomiting, the last thing she expected was to wake up in the middle of an invasive pelvic exam that she did not consent to. The doctor informed her he was collecting a sample to test for sexually transmitted diseases, but the doctor had previously determined a pelvic exam was unnecessary. Reflecting on the experience, Ashley said, “in any other setting, someone putting their fingers into my vagina without my consent is assault. I did not consent to this exam, and he did it anyway.”

The Battle Over Bostock: Dueling Presidential Administrations & The Need For Consistent And Reliable Lgbt Rights, Regina L. Hillman

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In the summer of 2020, the Supreme Court released its opinion in the landmark civil rights case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. In the Bostock decision, the Court held that protections from employment discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Prior to the Court’s decision, millions of LGBT employees had no protection from discriminatory treatment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and discrimination was pervasive.

Principle Originalism--The Third Way: A Jurisprudential Response To Dobbs V. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Ryan Fortson

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

All judges attempt to decide cases for reasons other than politics or their own personal opinions. But finding a consistent judicial methodology is fraught with peril. Against what it sees as the hyper-textualism of strict constructionism and the unfettered discretion of living constitutionalism, originalism posits itself as the only viable way to achieve an objectively neutral interpretation of the law. This is certainly the stance taken by the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which claims that the Constitution is silent on abortion and that therefore no corresponding right to abortion exists. But there can be different …

Anti-Abortion Statutes As Religious Beliefs, Scott Devito

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito ruled there is no right, under the U.S. Constitution, for a woman to have an abortion. Since then, eleven states have either enacted or activated statutes that forbid the performance of an abortion. Others may soon follow suit. This Article does not attempt to dispute the reasoning of the Dobbs decision. Instead, it asks whether the eleven state statutes, now construed as constitutionally permitted, are, in fact impermissible intrusions into the constitutionally required separation of church and state. This Article approaches this problem from both a historical and philosophical perspective. First, …