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.

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.

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).

Employment Discrimination Implications of Genetic Screening in the Workplace under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act

1984 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-347
Author(s):  
Edith F. Canter
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Genetic Screening ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Rehabilitation Act Of 1973 ◽  
Employment Opportunities ◽  
Screening Techniques ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Workplace Environments ◽  
Rehabilitation Act

AbstractThe emergence of genetic screening techniques will permit employers to exclude hypersusceptible individuals from potentially hazardous workplace environments. The denial of employment opportunities to these individuals, however, may constitute discrimination. This Note analyzes genetic screening cases with respect to currently available remedies contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Note concludes that Title VII claims may succeed but only in limited circumstances and that Rehabilitation Act claims will encounter numerous obstacles to relief. Additionally, the Note discusses some of the implications of the use of genetic screening in the workplace.

ARE AMERICA'S CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS STILL RELEVANT?

2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Skrentny
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Jim Crow ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Work Force ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Racial Groups ◽  
Skilled Workers ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Current Period ◽  
Legal Perspective

AbstractThe federal government created America's historic 1964 Civil Rights Act during a period of low immigration. The primary goal was to create equal opportunities for African Americans by ending Jim Crow discrimination in the South. Focusing on the issue of employment discrimination, and specifically employer preferences for immigrants, this article shows how the current period of high immigration from Latin America and Asia has created new challenges and dilemmas for Title VII, the employment discrimination title of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, sociological evidence indicates that U.S. businesses are engaging in race-conscious employment focused on the perceived value of racial skills (special abilities of certain racial groups at particular jobs) and racial symbolism (organizational benefits from displaying certain races on the work force). Businesses hire Asians and Latinos, and especially immigrant Asians and Latinos, because of the perceived racial skills of these groups at low-status jobs that require strong work ethics and obedient attitudes. Corporate employers seeking skilled workers do not necessarily prefer immigrants. Instead, they seek minorities for the symbolic value of their diversity, for their general racial skills at bringing new ideas to the workplace, and for their racial marketing skills for growing non-White markets. I assess these developments from a legal perspective, showing that a combination of a lack of litigation and some key court decisions have prevented Title VII from regulating racial skills and racial symbolism and/or from offering protection for immigrants themselves.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document