scholarly journals Sex Discrimination in the Supreme Court: A Comment on "Sex Equality, Sex Differences, and the Supreme Court"

1985 ◽  
Vol 1985 (1) ◽  
pp. 177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Earl M. Maltz
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Sex Equality ◽  
The Supreme Court

Defining sex-based discrimination among strife between the Justice Department and the EEOC

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 200-215
Author(s):  
Kelsey R Ruszkowski
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Justice Department ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings

In the last few decades, US Supreme Court rulings have made strides for the advancement of the LGBT community. However, this community has yet to enjoy equality in the workplace due to its exclusion from Title VII protection. This article details the recent conflict between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice in interpreting Title VII and how this conflict may make it difficult for the Supreme Court to reach a broad ruling concerning sex discrimination under Title VII. The EEOC relies on Supreme Court precedent concerning sex stereotyping to extend Title VII protection to sexual orientation while the Justice Department employs a textualist argument to support a narrow interpretation of sex. However, changing societal norms and advancing neuroscientific research support the conclusion that sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression is included under “sex” even when using textualism to interpret Title VII. Given that the Supreme Court is unlikely to defer to the EEOC’s interpretation, these arguments stemming from the social sciences may provide the support the Court needs to justify a decision to end employment discrimination against the LGBT community and gender nonconformists in a way that is consistent with the positions of both the EEOC and the Justice Department.

False Consensus Bias and Gender: The Case of Judge Clarence Thomas

1996 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford E. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
False Consensus Effect ◽  
False Consensus ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Major Exception ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Consensus Bias

Immediately following a weekend of nationally televised U.S. Senate hearings, 53 students completed a questionnaire indicating whether they, same-sex, and opposite-sex students thought Judge Clarence Thomas (a) should be confirmed for the Supreme Court and (b) had sexually harassed Anita Hill. Although there were no sex differences in actual opinions, both sexes presumed gender linkage. Results consistently supported a false consensus effect with one major exception: women who thought Thomas had sexually harassed Hill estimated that relatively few men would agree.

scholarly journals Intersections and Roads Untravelled: Sex and Family Status in Fraser v Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-42
Author(s):  
Jennifer Koshan
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Family Status ◽  
Pay Equity ◽  
Employment Benefits ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court

It has been a long road to the judicial recognition of women’s inequality under the Cana‑ dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.1 The Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Fraser v Can‑ ada is significant for being the first decision where a majority of the Court found adverse effects discrimination based on sex under section 15,2 and it was only two years prior that a claim of sex discrimination in favour of women was finally successful at the Court,3 almost 30 years after their first section 15 decision in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia. 4 1 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter], s 15. 2 Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28 [Fraser]. 3 Quebec (Attorney General) v Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux,  2018 SCC 17 [Alliance] (majority found sex discrimination under s 15 and rejected the government’s justification argument under s 1 in the pay equity context). See also Centrale des syndicats du Québec v Quebec (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 18 [Centrale] (majority found violation of s 15 but accepted the government’s s 1 argument, also in the pay equity context). For comments on these decisions see Fay Faraday, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Substantive Equality, Systemic Discrimination and Pay Equity at the Supreme Court of Canada” (2020) 94 SCLR (2d) 301; Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan, “Equality Rights and Pay Equity: Déjà Vu in the Supreme Court of Canada” (2019) 15 JL & Equality 1. See also British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association, 2014 SCC 70 (a one-paragraph decision restoring an arbitrator’s award allowing a s 15 employment benefits claim by women); Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v NAPE, 2004 SCC 66 (finding a violation of s 15 but accepting the government’s s 1 argument, again in the pay equity context).4 [1989] 1 SCR 143, 56 DLR (4th) 1.

scholarly journals Intimate relations in the workplace and sex harassment – remarks following the Supreme Court ruling of 23 January 2018, number III PK 13/17

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 67-81
Author(s):  
Radosław T. Skowron
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Human Relations ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Sex Structure ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Intimate Relations

In the paper, the author, revolving around the Supreme Court’s ruling linking close human relations in the workplace to the deterioration of management practices, critically analyses the dominant viewpoint espousing the need to strike out intimate behaviours from organizations. The author points to the significant impact of management theories, feminist trends and managerialization of law on the escalating de-sexualization of the workplace. In the article, it is evidenced that the overbearing conviction about the negative impact of intimate and sexual bonds on the working relations demands reinterpretation. It is alsoshown that consideration of sexual and intimate behaviours in organizations, irrespective of sex structures in these organizations, may paradoxically contribute to sex discrimination. The author offers the idea to modify the rules of employers’ liability depending on the sex structure and the number of women holding positions of authority and responsibility.

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Pressure Sores ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document