Women in Probation and Parole, 1974

1975 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meyressa H. Schoonmaker ◽  
Jennifer S. Brooks
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Probation Officers ◽  
State Agency ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Probation And Parole ◽  
Change In Practice ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Probation And Parole Officers

A 1970 survey of women in probation and parole showed that only 20 states mixed caseloads of parole and probation officers. A survey of state agencies by means of a questionnaire directed. to the director of each state agency in January 1974 showed dramatic changes. The number of states allowing probation and parole officers to supervise clients of the opposite sex jumped to 46, with only four states holding out. The questionnaire results also show, not surprisingly, the low ratio of women employed in probation and parole. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the need for more qualified employees, and the inefficiency of caseload segrega tion have influenced changes in use of personnel. Although the change in practice to integrated caseloads is selective in some states and made with reservations in others, the response of one director of parole operations seems to capture the mood of inevitable change in practice and attitude: Civil Service says that his agency cannot discriminate against women and that a woman can do a "man's job" in all respects.

The Failure of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification in Cross‐Gender Prison Guard Cases: A Problem beyond Equal Employment Opportunity

Hypatia ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-121
Author(s):  
Camille Monahan
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Women's Equality ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Law ◽  
Occupational Qualification

Knowing the theory of gender that a court is using to understand and assess the issues in a case is vital to ensuring that women are afforded their full rights under the law. Unfortunately, courts often do not explicitly state what understanding of gender is informing their decisions. An exception is found in employment law: specifically, the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which allows employers to engage in sex‐based discrimination in those instances in which the sex of the employee is a reasonably necessary qualification for the job. In these cases, because the court must analyze how “manness” or “womanness” impacts one's qualification to hold certain kinds of employment, the court must articulate its understanding of gender. This paper examines two BFOQ cases in the cross‐gender prison guard context, those cases in which an individual of one sex seeks to guard inmates of the opposite sex. In these cases the courts created a theory of gender that posits men and women as different in kind. The theory developed in this line of cases is an attack on Title VII protections and a potential barrier to women's equality under the law.

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.

(Non)existent Laws of Workplace Cyberbullying

2021 ◽  
pp. 425-446
Author(s):  
Harrison M. Rosenthal ◽  
Genelle I. Belmas
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Workplace Harassment ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
History Of ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Affirmative Defense

This chapter chronicles the legislative and jurisprudential history of workplace bullying and analyzes new frameworks for applying employee harassment laws to the digital era. Part I considers the sociolegal underpinnings of workplace harassment found in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The authors discuss how Title VII and its legal progeny gave way to “hostile work environment” claims. Part II discusses leading U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the creation of an affirmative defense for employers, and the limitations of that defense, including those developing in state and local jurisdictions. Part III discusses prevailing solutions and raises questions not yet addressed in the legal literature. Findings reveal that American jurisprudence is ill-set to protect or compensate workers injured by bullying—either cyber or physical.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document