Buch, Englisch, 504 Seiten, Format (B × H): 152 mm x 229 mm, Gewicht: 880 g
Reihe: Feminist Judgment Series: Rewritten Judicial Opinions
Buch, Englisch, 504 Seiten, Format (B × H): 152 mm x 229 mm, Gewicht: 880 g
Reihe: Feminist Judgment Series: Rewritten Judicial Opinions
ISBN: 978-1-108-49317-8
Verlag: Cambridge University Press
How would feminist perspectives and analytical methods change the interpretation of employment discrimination law? Would the conscious use of feminist perspectives make a difference? This volume shows the difference feminist analysis can make to the interpretation of employment discrimination statutes. This book brings together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite fifteen employment discrimination decisions in which a feminist analysis would have changed the outcome or the courts' reasoning. It demonstrates that use of feminist perspectives and methodologies, if adopted by the courts, would have made a significant difference in employment discrimination law, leading to a fairer and more egalitarian workplace, and a more prosperous society.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
- Sozialwissenschaften Soziologie | Soziale Arbeit Soziologie Allgemein Feminismus, Feministische Theorie
- Rechtswissenschaften Arbeitsrecht Antidiskriminierung (AGG), Gleichbehandlung
- Sozialwissenschaften Soziologie | Soziale Arbeit Soziale Gruppen/Soziale Themen Gender Studies, Geschlechtersoziologie
Weitere Infos & Material
1. Introduction Ann C. McGinley and Nicole Buonocore Porter; 2: Supreme Court and gender narratives Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) Commentary: Naomi M. Mann Judgment: Anne Mullins; 3. Pregnancy discrimination Int'l Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991) Commentary: Wynter Allen Judgment: Marcia McCormick, Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1338 (2015) Commentary: Bradley Areheart Judgment: Deborah Widiss; 4. Appearances – intersectional approaches Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) Commentary: Roxanna Bell Judgment: Angela Onwuachi-Willig and JoAnne Sweeney, E.E.O.C. v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, 852 F. 3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2016) Commentary: Jaspir (Jesse) Bawa Judgment: D. Wendy Greene, Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2009) Commentary: Sahar Aziz Judgment: Valorie Vojdik; 5. Harassment because of sex Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (opinion reproduced from Feminist Judgments) Commentary: Trina Jones Judgment: Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Oncale v. Sundowner Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (opinion reproduced from Feminist Judgments) Commentary: Nancy E. Dowd Judgment: Ann C. McGinley; 6. Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination as sex discrimination Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority, 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) Commentary: Pamela Wilkins Judgment: Catherine Archibald, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) Commentary: Danielle D. Weatherby Judgment: Ryan H. Nelson; 7. Systemic claims and gender: proving disparate treatment and impact AFSCME v. State of Washington, 770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985) Commentary: Stephanie Bornstein Judgment: Teresa Godwin Phelps, E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988) Commentary: Maria Ontiveros Judgment: Leticia Saucedo, Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) Commentary: Rebecca K. Lee Judgment: Marley Weiss, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) Commentary: Charles Sullivan Judgment: Tristin Green; 8. Retaliation Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) Commentary: Rebecca Hanner White Judgment: Michael Z. Green.