Feminist Judgments
Feminist Judgments
Nicole Buonocore Porter, University of Toledo, Ohio
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.
- Uses feminist theories and an intersectional approach to rewrite important cases in employment discrimination law, examining not only sex and gender but also race and religion
- Employs commentaries before each rewritten case that explain how the rewritten cases differ from the original and how the rewritten case would have changed the law
- Examines stereotypes, masculinities theory, and the role of implicit bias in discrimination
Reviews & endorsements
‘The book is useful not only for scholars and teachers interested in feminist legal studies, but also for those interested in intersecting genres of critical legal analyses based on race, gender, class, LGBTQI status, and membership in other vulnerable populations.’ Kristin N. Henning, Feminist Legal Studies
Product details
October 2020Hardback
9781108493178
504 pages
155 × 235 × 30 mm
0.91kg
Available
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.
