Bibframe Work

Title

Feminist judgments

Type

Text

Monograph

Contribution

McGinley, Ann C. (editor)

Porter, Nicole Buonocore (editor)

Subject

Sex discrimination in employment--Law and legislation--United States--Cases (LCSH)

Feminist jurisprudence--United States (LCSH)

Language

English (eng)

Geographic Coverage

United States

Classification

LCC: KF3467 (Assigner: dlc) (Status: used by assigner)

DDC: 344.7301/4133 full (Assigner: dlc)(Source: 23)

Supplementary Content

index (index)

Content

text (txt)

Summary

"Could feminist perspectives and methods change the shape of employment discrimination law? To answer this question, we assembled a group of scholars and lawyers to use feminist perspectives and methodology to rewrite significant employment discrimination cases from the United States Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. This volume, like all of the books in Cambridge University Press's Feminist Judgments Series, demonstrates that judges with feminist viewpoints could have changed the law as well as the reasoning underlying the law, based on the precedent and other legal sources in effect at the time of the original decision. It demonstrates that use of feminist approaches can assure a more accurate and fair resolution of employment discrimination disputes, a resolution that more closely mirrors the purposes of the employment discrimination statutes. In essence, employment discrimination laws were enacted to protect the most vulnerable workers-those who are less powerful because of their age, race, color, sex, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, and religion-from discriminatory hiring, working conditions, promotions, and discharges. But unfortunately, the law has developed in ways that make it difficult for vulnerable workers who have suffered discrimination to prevail in their claims. Some of these reasons entail the complexity and difficulty of proving employment discrimination"-- Provided by publisher.

Table Of Contents

Introduction / Ann C. McGinley and Nicole Buonocore Porter

Supreme Court and Gender Narratives : Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa , 539 U.S. 90 (2003) / Commentary: Naomi M. Mann, Judgment: Anne Mullins

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 - Appearances : Intersectional Approaches : Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co ., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) / Commentary: Roxanna Bell, Authors of Rewritten Opinion: 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

Harassment Because of Sex : Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) / Author of (New) Commentary: Trina Jones, Author of (Reproduced) Rewritten Opinion: Angela Onwuachi-Willig ; Oncale v. Sundowner Services , 523 U.S. 75 (1998) / Author of (New) Commentary: Nancy E. Dowd, Author of (Reproduced) Rewritten Opinion: Ann C. McGinley

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

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

Retaliation : Clark County School District v. Breeden , 532 U.S. 268 (2001) / Commentary: Rebecca Hanner White, Judgment: Michael Z. Green

Authorized Access Point

Feminist judgments

Admin Metadata

Status: new

Date: 2020-03-24

Agent: United States, Library of Congress

Admin Metadata

Status: changed

Date: 2021-07-02T15:18:39

Admin Metadata

Generation Process: https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe2/releases/tag/v2.7.0