Privacy, Efficiency, and the Equality of Men and Women: A Revisionist View of Sex Discrimination in Employment

1981 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-636
Author(s):  
Mayer G. Freed ◽  
Daniel D. Polsby
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Maintenance Of Sex ◽  
Considerable Debate ◽  
Discrimination In Employment ◽  
Per Se

The Supreme Court's decision inCity of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manharthas engendered a considerable debate, much of which has appeared in the pages of thisJournal. Defenders of theManhartdecision take its critics to task for failure to appreciate the place of that decision in the overall jurisprudence of employment discrimination. In this article, the authors challenge the underlying conception of the law of sex discrimination that is said to dictate the result inManhart. Far from erecting a per se rule against all sex classifications, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is shown to recognize both the relevance of prevalent social norms about sex differences and the legitimacy of certain interests of employers as limited justifications for the maintenance of sex-conscious lines in some circumstances, a recognition that contrasts sharply with the statute's categorical prohibition on racial classifications. It follows from this discussion thatManhart'soutcome was not ordained by the ethos of the laws against sex discrimination.

scholarly journals 'Sex' and Religion after Bostock

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin S. Pandya ◽  
Marcia McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Employer Discrimination ◽  
The U.S

This paper reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). There, the Court held that by barring employer discrimination against any individual “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bars employment discrimination because an individual is gay or transgender. The paper then speculates about how much Bostock will affect how likely lower court judges will read other “sex” discrimination prohibitions in the U.S. Code in the same way, in part based on a canvass of the text of about 150 of those prohibitions. The paper also discusses the religion-based defenses that defendants may raise in response under Title VII itself, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Employer “Business” and “Job” Defenses in Civil Rights Actions

1994 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-586
Author(s):  
Paul S. Greenlaw ◽  
John P. Kohl
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Employee Relations ◽  
Equal Pay ◽  
Prima Facie Case ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Legitimate Business ◽  
Discrimination In Employment ◽  
Equal Pay Act ◽  
Merit System

In civil rights actions, employee-plaintiffs alleging discrimination must attempt to prove a prima facie case;1 and if accomplished the employer-defendant must attempt to rebut such cases with some type of defense. These defenses may be very narrow and specific in scope such as the seniority or merit system defenses explicitly provided for under the 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA). On the other hand, broader “business” and or “job” defenses (and the wording and meaning varies from situation to situation) have been both devised by the courts as standards of behavior for employers, and stipulated for employers by legislation. This article will analyze four important of these employer defenses: (1) the legitimate business reason and its antecedents in EPA litigation; (2) the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) “reasonably necessary” defense provided in both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; (3) the business necessity and job related standards promulgated in Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), as eventually codified by the Civil Rights Act of 1991; and (4) the job relatedness/business necessity/reasonable accommodation defense of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). All of the above defenses pose current challenges to employers except probably the BFOQ, so that their examination should be of value to all those involved in employee relations law.

The Equal Pay Act: The First 30 Years

1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne M. Crampton ◽  
John W. Hodge ◽  
Jitendra M. Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Wage Differentials ◽  
Equal Pay ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Pay Disparity ◽  
Women's Wages ◽  
Equal Work ◽  
Equal Pay Act

Historically, women have been paid less than men. This pay disparity between men and women exists even when women hold similar jobs and are comparable to men with regard to seniority and experience. The goal of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to change this situation. The Equal Pay Act states that men and women should receive the same pay for equal work. Three decades have passed but women's wages remain less than wages for men in equal positions. The focus of this paper is a discussion of the Equal Pay Act on wage differentials between men and women. Strategies will be presented that organizations can follow to minimize compensation disparities.

Sexual Harassment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa M. Beiner
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Court System ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law ◽  
Discrimination In Employment ◽  
Sexual Harassment Policies ◽  
Feminist Organizing

This chapter explores the origins, development, and current status of workplace sexual harassment law. Sexual harassment law owes its genesis to a combination of grass-roots feminist organizing and legal feminist theorizing. After initial losses in the courts, feminist lawyers and their clients scored significant victories in the court system. Employers and those accused of discrimination soon fought back, including by participating in the development of an extensive system of training and anti-sexual harassment policies that have not proven helpful to targets of sexual harassment. Feminist legal scholars have offered critiques of the courts’ decisions, taking a variety of approaches to increasing the law’s efficacy and extending its reach to encompass the experiences of men, women of color, and sexual minorities. Yet, plaintiffs using Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main federal antidiscrimination statute applicable to sex discrimination in employment, continue to find themselves thrust out of court due to formalistic rules developed in the court system. This has led other scholars to suggest different legal approaches to address this persistent and disturbing form of workplace discrimination. Whether current grass-roots campaigns like the #MeToo movement will prove more effective than prior legal efforts remains to be seen.

scholarly journals One Is a Claim, Two Is a Defense: Bringing an End to the Equal Opportunity Harasser Defense

2005 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. McCullough
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Equal Opportunity ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
The Past ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Immediate Supervisor ◽  
Almost Continuous

Consider the following three workplace scenarios. Alice, a female employee at ABC corporation, has been subjected to almost continuous harassment by her immediate supervisor, Bob, for the past two months. Several times each week, Bob makes crude and sexually suggestive comments and, on numerous occasions, Bob has touched Alice inappropriately in the workplace. Assuming Alice attempts to remedy this situation in a reasonable time period and her employer has unreasonably failed “to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior,” Alice will most likely be able to bring a hostile workplace sex discrimination claim against her employer for Bob’s sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.3

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document