Supreme Court rulings on sexual harassment disputes

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanan Gwaltney Gibson ◽  
Heather Roberts-Fox
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings

A Look Back: Church, state, and Kappan

2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Teresa Preston
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
School Policy ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Religious Instruction ◽  
Look Back ◽  
Diverse World ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
Role Of Religion

In this monthly column, Kappan managing editor Teresa Preston looks back at how the magazine has covered questions related to the role of religion in public schools. Authors considered how Supreme Court rulings affected school policy and practice, whether religious instruction is necessary for promoting positive values, and how to encourage respect in a religiously diverse world.

Legislative Department

2020 ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Danny M. Adkison ◽  
Lisa McNair Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The State ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The People ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
The U.S

This chapter assesses Article V of the Oklahoma constitution, which concerns the legislative department. Section 1 states that “the Legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a Legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” However, “the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the Legislature, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the Legislature.” Section 2 provides for the designation and definition of reserved powers. Initiative means the power of the people to propose bills, and to enact or reject them at the polls. Referendum is the right of the people to have bills passed by the legislature submitted to the voters for their approval. Meanwhile, in May 1964, the Oklahoma constitution was amended to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The amendment passed and Sections 9 through 16 were replaced with Sections 9A through 11E. The chapter then details the provisions for the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Scandalizing the judiciary: An analysis of the uneven response of the Supreme Court of India to sexual harassment allegations against judges

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 563-590
Author(s):  
Sanjay Jain ◽  
Saranya Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Systematic Pattern

Abstract The Supreme Court of India (SC) pronounced a momentous judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan in 1997, categorically recognizing the menace of sexual harassment (SH) at workplace and constitutionally rendering it as being in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India 1950. The Court also provided a mechanism for redressal against SH, which was ultimately reinforced by Parliament with the enactment of Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (POSH Act). However, when it comes to allegations of SH against judges in the SC and High Courts by its employees, interns, or lower court judges, the response of the SC has been abysmal to say the least. There is a systematic pattern to suggest foul play and conspiracy in each such allegation, and judges, including even the Chief Justice of India (CJI), have not hesitated to openly indulge in victim-shaming and-blaming. In other words, the court has not been able to uphold its own jurisprudence on sexual harassment, which it expects to be scrupulously adhered to by other organs of the state. It is submitted that in not supporting the cause of victims alleging SH against judges, the other organs of the state are also party to this constitutional decay and serious infraction of fundamental rights. It leads us to ask the question, how can we guard against the guardians?

The Recent Developments in Custody Law for Muslims in Israel: Gender and Religion

Hawwa ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moussa Abou Ramadan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Guardianship Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Back Door ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings

AbstractIn this paper we explore how Shari‘a Courts cope with the issue of custody, in light of two Supreme Court rulings concerning custody cases, in which the regional Shari‘a court suspected the mother of living a Christian way of life. The article aims at discerning the debate between the Shari‘a Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court concerning the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law and rulings in the issue of child custody, and at proposing an alternative line of interpretation that would help avoiding the debate. The article argues that Shari‘a courts have embarked on a “purification” process, removing secular elements from their legal discourse, both at the rhetoric and symbolic levels, and thus excluding any affinity to secular legislation. The Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law is a main focus of those “purification” efforts. This raises the question of why the Supreme Court actually reversed only so few Shari‘a court rulings. We suggest that it did not have to do so. Though explicitly not basing its rulings on civil law, the Shari‘a Court of Appeals actually imported the principle of the child’s best interest through the back door, by considering it to be a principle acknowledged by Shari‘a. The court reinterpreted religious legal literature and in fact Islamized Israeli law, in the sense of turning an Israeli legal principle into an Islamic one. Another softening of what appears to be a rigid position held by the Shari‘a court may be discerned in its rulings that allow drawing on social workers’ reports in order to determine a child’s best interest.

scholarly journals We Can Thank Harvey Weinstein for Doing What Congress and the Supreme Court Failed to Do

2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Sherwyn ◽  
Paul Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Popular Press ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

While the years 2017 and 2018 will be remembered for numerous geo political and social movements, any retrospective of this time will include the issue of sexual harassment and the corresponding “Me Too” movement. In this time, sexual harassment has transformed from a workplace legal concept to an issue that is defining the fabric of the country. While no one could persuasively argue that sexual harassment has not expanded from its legal roots to a movement that transcends the law, the fact is that the concept is rooted and adjudicated in law. Sadly, the commentators and the popular press often ignore or misstate the law. This creates a dangerous culture where the public is misinformed of their rights and responsibilities. More troubling, is the fact that there are serious problems with the law that need to be understand and, we contend, changed, in order for the entire problem to be eliminated, or, at least, mitigated. This paper explains the law with regard to what constitutes sexual harassment and when the employer is liable, identifies the problems, and proposes a fix so that we can create a future workplace where the authors’ five daughters (between them) and the rest of their generation will be able to honestly not raise their hands and not have to say: “Me Too!”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document