Harvard Law Review: Volume 125, Number 6 - April 2012
Available at all leading retailers and booksellers. Smith , F. Agency for International Development , F.
- Maths Plus 3 Interactive Quiz Book.
- Ending East of Suez: The British Decision to Withdraw from Malaysia and Singapore 1964-1968 (Oxford Historical Monographs).
- Article excerpt;
- Join Kobo & start eReading today.
Henderson , 27 A. Tucson Unified School District , F.
Volume - Issue 7
Kirtsaeng , F. Department of State. Periodicals postage paid at Boston, Mass.
Remittance must be made by U. Dollar Draft payable at a United States bank.
Subscription requests that are received midvolume may be subject to an additional postage and handling charge. Domestic claims of nonreceipt of issues should be made within 90 days of the month of publication, overseas claims within days; thereafter, the regular back issue rate will be charged for replacement. All notifications of changes of address should include old and new addresses, with ZIP codes.
Please inform us one month in advance to ensure prompt delivery. Back issues and volumes prior to Volume are available from William S. For the prices of issues, volumes, and sets prior to Volume , please inquire of William S. The Review invites the submission of unsolicited manuscripts.
The Review will give preference to articles under 50 law review pages in length — the equivalent of about 25, words including text and footnotes. The Review will not publish articles exceeding 60 law review pages — the equivalent of about 30, words — except in extraordinary circumstances. Review of manuscripts may take from four to six weeks. Authors who are considering concurrent submissions to other journals should be aware that the Review cannot guarantee timely responses to requests for expedited review.
Pregnancy and the Traditional Understanding of Sex Discrimination. Courts have therefore argued that this prohibition must be restricted to the traditional concept of sex discrimination.
Traditionally, courts suggest, discrimination because of sex referred only to practices that divided men and women into two perfectly sex-differentiated groups. Although Title VII doctrine has evolved over time, this traditional concept of sex discrimination continues to exert a powerful regulative influence over the law. It excludes certain claims — such as those by sexual minorities — from coverage and elevates the evidentiary burdens plaintiffs must satisfy in order to prove discrimination because of sex.
This Article argues that the traditional concept of sex discrimination is an invented tradition. It purports to reflect the historical record, but in fact reflects normative judgments about how deeply the law should intervene in the sex-based regulation of the workplace. Employers advanced the argument that Title VII applied only to practices that sorted men and women into two perfectly sex-differentiated groups in order to preserve the traditional gendered organization of the workplace and insulate particular employment practices from scrutiny.
In the s, courts adopted this interpretation but no longer cited the need to preserve conventional sex and family roles as a justification; instead, courts cited deference to the legislature and fidelity to tradition as justifications for interpreting the law narrowly.
This tendency should prompt us to think critically about the assertion that deference to the legislature and fidelity to tradition require courts to adhere to a narrow conception of what it means to discriminate because of sex. In , in General Electric Co. In place of legislative history, the Court turned to tradition for guidance in interpreting the statute. Courts rejected some of the earliest sexual harassment claims on the ground that the harassment at issue targeted some but not all members of the relevant class and thus did not qualify as discrimination because of sex.
Courts hold that only by demonstrating that such comparators were not subject to the same adverse treatment can plaintiffs prove it was their biological sex that triggered the alleged discrimination. This Article argues that the traditional concept of sex discrimination, as articulated by courts, is an invented tradition.
The historian Eric Hobsbawm famously used that term to refer to social practices that purport to be old, or imply continuity with the past, but are actually quite recent in origin.
Harvard Law Review: Volume 125, Number 6 - April 2012
Courts claimed that their narrowly circumscribed definition of sex discrimination was deeply rooted in history, but in fact, it was quite new. It did not express a historical fact. Its authority derives primarily from the contention that it is deeply rooted in the American legal tradition. When courts focus on the formal characteristics of challenged employment practices, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that an employer has sorted employees precisely along biological sex lines before labeling its actions discriminatory, they purport to be deferring to a long-standing and shared consensus about what it means to discriminate because of sex.
They suggest that this understanding has all the weight of history behind it. The traditional concept of sex discrimination was therefore developed without any actual inquiry into the meaning that had historically been ascribed to this practice. This Article seeks to recover that history.
Workers flooded the EEOC with sex discrimination claims and made arguments about the protections accorded them under the new law.
- The Undead Constitution.
- The 16th Song;
- Third Base.
- Platform by UT School of Architecture - Issuu.
- Harvard Law Review!
This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details.
More filters. Sort order. Jan 04, rated it it was ok Shelves: law. This edition of the HLR was fine. That's it: fine. It's an interesting proposition and Greene expounds upon it well. I came away agreeing with him. If I had to sum up the page article in one sentence: "If the decisions in those cases were so categorically WRONG, they would have never been decided in the way that they were. I don't have any real reason to disagree with his assessment that the reason 4th amendment case law is so incoherent is because it isn't meant to be consistent like just about every other theater of law.
Browse more videos
A solid proposition that is well-defended. Everything else in this issue is dumb, though. A multidisciplinary approach, including historical research, analysis of architecture, and the stories of immigrant detainees, exposed the micro experiences of detention as constituent of the macro processes that shape United States immigration policy.
Private corporations design and build detention centers as highly institutionalized environments with little oversight and in the architectural style of civilian prisons. This not only increases our capacity to detain men, women, and children in prison-like conditions despite the fact that they have not necessarily committed a crime, it also predisposes migrants to punitive environments and experiences for years to come. Rendering deten-. Accessed on October 10, Previous page Next page.