Boureslan v. Aramco

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-380
Author(s):  
Marialuisa S. Gallozzi
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

Plaintiff, a United States citizen employed in Saudi Arabia, brought an employment discrimination suit against defendant, a U.S. corporation, alleging violations of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000e (1982)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed (per Davis, J.) the district court’s dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and held (two to one): (1) that neither the language nor the legislative history of title VII evinces a clearly expressed congressional intent to apply title VII outside U.S. borders; (2) that in the absence of clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, the presumption against extraterritoriality controls; and (3) that no “negative inference” extending the reach of title VII should be drawn from its “alien exemption” provision. Judge King’s dissent discussed international law principles not addressed by the majority. The Fifth Circuit subsequently granted on December 23, 1988, the petition for rehearing en banc submitted by plaintiff and various amici, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

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.

scholarly journals If You Build It, “They/Them” Will Come: The Misgendering of Transgender Nonbinary Athletes Is Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-334
Author(s):  
Kelli Rodriguez Currie
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Title Ix ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Inclusive Language ◽  
History Of ◽  
Recent Interpretation

This article provides necessary context to adequately engage in a discussion about transgender and nonbinary individuals, including defined terms. It then provides a brief history of Title IX, articulates the requirements for compliance with the statute, and discusses its application to transgender athletes. Next, this article provides an overview of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the recent statutory analysis of its prohibition on employment discrimination because of sex in Bostock v. Clayton County extends that analysis to the statutory language of Title IX, and summarizes the recent interpretation by the Department of Education applying that analysis to Title IX. The article then discusses the implications of the persistent misgendering of transgender nonbinary athletes and argues that only by allowing all athletes to compete as their true gender will the inclusive goals of Title IX be realized. The article concludes that the requirements for Title IX compliance are not inclusive of transgender nonbinary athletes and contradictory to the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex articulated by the statute itself. The article proposes several necessary changes to the language of those requirements for compliance and argues that the Department of Education must make changes in its interpretation toward more inclusive language to truly achieve the goals of Title IX.

(Non)existent Laws of Workplace Cyberbullying

2022 ◽  
pp. 2019-2040
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.

Litigation Costs and Returns to Experience

2002 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Oyer ◽  
Scott Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
Labor Market ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Current Population Survey ◽  
Population Survey ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity ◽  
Damage Awards ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Returns To Experience ◽  
Redistributive Effects

We develop a model linking maximum damage awards available to plaintiffs in wrongful termination lawsuits, workers' propensity to sue as a function of experience, and returns to experience. Using Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data on protected-worker discrimination complaints and labor-market data from the Current Population Survey, we examine how returns to experience among protected workers changed around the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. We show that employers' reactions to employment protections may induce redistributive effects. Furthermore, these effects operate not merely across groups of differing protected status, but also within groups of identical protected status.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document