Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSiegel, Reva
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:14.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:34:52Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:34:52Z
dc.date.issued2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/1130
dc.identifier.contextkey1674545
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/324
dc.description.abstractThe guarantee of equal protection of the laws extends to women as well as men. Yet for the first 100 years of the Fourteenth Amendment’s life, the Supreme Court never found a law unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminated on the basis of sex. Between 1970 and 1980, social movement advocacy and brilliant litigation by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others changed our constitutional law. Cases beginning with Reed v. Reed demonstrated that in important respects, sex was like race: familiar justifications for excluding women rested on stereotypes that denied individuals the opportunity to compete and relegated women to secondary status in American society. Over the course of the decade, the Court extended the anti-stereotyping principle from discrimination on the basis of race to discrimination on the basis of sex.
dc.titlePregnancy and Sex-Role Stereotyping, From Struck to Carhart
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:34:52Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1130
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2135&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Pregnancy_and_Sex_Role_Stereot ...
Size:
136.9Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record