Employment / Labour Law Discrimination Law

Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Employment Discrimination Opinions

Edited by Ann C. McGinley · Nicole Buonocore Porter
Cambridge University Press October 2020

Specifications

ISBN-13
9781108717403
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Publication
October 2020
Format
Paperback
Jurisdiction
U.K. ? Countri(es) for reference only

Details

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.

Table of Contents

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.
HKD 580.06 −3%
HKD 598.00

Inclusive of HK delivery

Ready to ship
Delivery Time: around 4-5 weeks
Extra 2-10 working days if shipping address outside Hong Kong
  • Free HK shipping over HK$1,000
  • International shipping to 35+ countries
Order Form
Save

Recommended

You may also be interested in these books:

More titles from Discrimination Law

View all