Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRenan Barzilay, Arianne
dc.date2021-11-25T13:35:09.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:54:40Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:54:40Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-07T13:09:28-07:00
dc.identifieryjlf/vol28/iss1/2
dc.identifier.contextkey9990545
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/7077
dc.description.abstractIt is a pillar of employment discrimination law that Title ViI's prohibition of "sex" discrimination lacks prior legislative history.. When interpreting the meaning of sex discrimination protection under Title VII, courts have stated that it is impossible to fathom what Congress intended when it included "sex" in the Act. After all, the sex provision was added at the last minute by the Southern archconservative congressman Howard "Judge" Smith in an attempt to frustrate the Civil Rights Act's passage. Courts have often interpreted the sex provision's passage as a "fluke" that has left us bereft of prior legislative history that might guide judicial interpretation. It is not surprising, then, that Title VII's sex discrimination prohibition has been rather narrowly construed.
dc.titleParenting Title VII: Rethinking the History of the Sex Discrimination Prohibition
dc.source.journaltitleYale Journal of Law & Feminism
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:54:40Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol28/iss1/2
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1363&context=yjlf&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Arianne_Renan_Barzilay.pdf
Size:
3.092Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record