Eco 336 Constitutional Limits on

Information about Eco 336 Constitutional Limits on

Published on December 17, 2007

Author: Mee12

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Constitutional Limits on Sex-Based Discrimination :  Constitutional Limits on Sex-Based Discrimination Eco 336 I. Paternalism – Pre-1971 :  I. Paternalism – Pre-1971 Foundation of US system was English Common Law Operated under 3 basic assumptions about women’s place in social order Dependence on men was necessary and proper for women Property management and public affairs best left to men Interests of a husband and wife were identical and were expressed by his will and self-interest. Married woman’s relationship to her husband was “something better than his dog, a little dearer than his horse” (Kay & West, p. 11) I. Paternalism (cont):  I. Paternalism (cont) Classifications and the Law Our legal system classifies persons and treats them differently under the law. Examples? Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was the basis for sex discrimination lawsuits in cases where plaintiffs have claimed that a statute or governmental action constituted a denial of equal protection. “No persons shall be denied equal protection of the laws”. I. Paternalism (cont):  I. Paternalism (cont) Equal Protection tests – RATIONAL BASIS TEST REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TEST (Kay, pp 29) Pre-1971 The law must be a reasonable measure designed to achieve a legitimate government purpose. The law must establish a reasonable relationship between the goal and the means of attaining the goal. Question: Is sex a reasonable basis upon which to the goal? More generally, is there a reasonable connection between the classification (age, sex, intelligence), and the public purpose of the law? Burden of proof on the plaintiff. Paternalism (Cont):  Paternalism (Cont) Important Court Cases (15th Amendment, 1870, Right to vote cannot be denied based on color, race, servitude) Bradwell v Illinois, 1873 Myra Bradwell’s application for a license to practice law had been denied by the Illinois Supreme Court solely because she was a woman. See handout for excerpts from ruling. Discriminatory legislation was rational because of perceived physical limitations and social functions of women. Rational relationship between the law the the government objective of protecting women. I. Paternalism (Cont):  I. Paternalism (Cont) Important Court Cases (cont) Mueller v Oregon (1908) Oregon law prohibited employment of women in any mechanical establishment, factory, or laundry more than 10 hours/day. See handout for excerpt from ruling. Law was upheld as constitutional because women were emotionally and physically weaker. Rational relationship between law and government objective of protecting women. Upheld women-only “protective” legislation. I. Paternalism (cont):  I. Paternalism (cont) (19th Amendment – Women’s Right to Vote, 1920) Important Court Cases (cont) Goesaert v. Cleary (1948) Michigan law denied women the right to tend bar Allowed women to serve as waitresses but not bartenders EXCEPT for the wives and daughters of male tavern owners. Plaintiff challenged the law on the exception for wives and daughters (rather than discrimination against women per se.) There was a rational basis for the exemption for wives and daughter. II. Turning Point - 1971:  II. Turning Point - 1971 Reed v. Reed (1971) FACTS, ISSUES? First time the Court invalidated a statute on grounds of sex discrimination. Is administrative ease an important enough objective to justify classification based on sex? No relationship between the government objective (best executor of will) and the means (preference given to men). Not a rational relationship between law and government objective. II. Turning Point - 1971:  II. Turning Point - 1971 Sex as a Suspect Classification Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) FACT, ISSUES? “Classifications based on sex should be treated as suspect, like … race, alienage, and national origin, are inherently suspect, and must therefore be subjected to close strict scrutiny.” “What differentiates sex from such nonsuspect statutes as intelligence or physical disability, and aligns it with the recognized suspect criteria, is that sex characteristic frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society. As a result, statutory distinctions between the sexes often have the effect of invidiously relegating the entire class of females to inferior legal status without regard to the actual capabilities of its members.” Like Reed v. Reed, a departure from “traditional” rational bases analysis. II. Turning Point - 1971:  II. Turning Point - 1971 New Equal Protection Test – “Craig test” Craig v. Boren (1976) FACTS, ISSUES? New standard to test constitutionality of statute. Law must have a substantial relationship to the achievement of an important govt objective. So raised the bar/standard. Stricter test. Intermediate (“heightened”) scrutiny test. Summary:  Summary The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has declined in significance as a format for expanding women’s rights. Women and Employment :  Women and Employment I. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 Prohibits employers from discriminating “between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees…at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex…for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions…” Deficient as an anti-discrimination tool – why? “Since job content is a matter determined by the particular employer, whether two job classifications entail “equal work”…necessarily must be decided on a case-by-case basis.” Kay, p. 924. See handouts. II. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 :  II. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 It is unlawful for an employer “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges or employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”, and to “segregate or classify employees…based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”. Other protected classes? II. Title VII (cont):  II. Title VII (cont) A. Title VII cases further defining what prohibited discrimination Is sex-plus discrimination prohibited under Title VII? Defn: Discrimination based on sexually-identifiable factors. Phillips v. Martin Marietta (1971) Facts, issues, ruling. II. Title VII (cont):  II. Title VII (cont) Sex-Plus Discrimination (cont) Griggs v. Duke Power Co (1971) Race-Plus Discrimination FACTS, ISSUES? Employer has burden of proving that any given requirement must “have a manifest relationship to the employment in question.” Nothing in the Act precludes the use of testing…Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins. Far from disparaging job qualifications as such, Congress has made such qualifications the controlling factor, so that race, religion, nationality, and sex become irrelevant” (Kay, p. 585) II. Title VII (cont):  II. Title VII (cont) Title CII cases further defining what prohibited discrimination (cont) Jobs in which “religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reaonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business…” Diaz v. Pan Am (1971) – see Kay, pp. 785-787 “Discriminating based on sex is valid only when the essence of the business operation would be undermined by not hiring members of one sex exclusively”. II. Title VII (cont):  II. Title VII (cont) -BFOQ (cont) Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977) FACTS, ISSUES, RULING? Dissenting opinion by Justice Marshall (pp. 779-783): “Some women, like some men, undoubtedly are not qualified and do not wish to serve as prison guards, but that does no justify the exclusion of all women…” “All…dangers – with one exception…-are inherent in a prison setting whatever the gender of the guards”. “…perpetuates one of the most insidious of the old myths about women – that women…are seductive sexual objects”. P. 781 & 782 Hooters II. Title VII (cont):  II. Title VII (cont) Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978) Amendment to Title VII Court cases/History (see Kay pp 746 & 2nd para on p. 741) Geduldig v. Aiello (1974) State of CA did not cover pregnancy/childbirth-related medical costs in its disability benefits plan. State Supreme Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not sex discrimination. Rationale? GE v. Gilbert (1976) GE did not cover pregnancy/childbirth-related medical costs in its disability benefits plan. UW Supreme Court ruling similar to that in Geduldig. US Congress decided Courts had misinterpreted Title VII. Congress had intended in 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on pregnancy as part of the sex restriction. PDA was intended to correct SC’s narrow interpretation of Title VII.

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Mee12

08 Dog and Cat Nutrition
16. 11. 2007
0 views

08 Dog and Cat Nutrition

miguel angel bustamante
01. 10. 2007
0 views

miguel angel bustamante

Athens 2004
02. 10. 2007
0 views

Athens 2004

hauer1
27. 09. 2007
0 views

hauer1

aws
06. 11. 2007
0 views

aws

Chapters 9 10
26. 11. 2007
0 views

Chapters 9 10

ContinuousIntegration final
28. 11. 2007
0 views

ContinuousIntegration final

N A V I G T O R S VBB 2007
30. 11. 2007
0 views

N A V I G T O R S VBB 2007

Fruit Insects
01. 12. 2007
0 views

Fruit Insects

raghavachari
04. 12. 2007
0 views

raghavachari

Test Anxiety 1
06. 12. 2007
0 views

Test Anxiety 1

ProvidentialHistory
31. 10. 2007
0 views

ProvidentialHistory

chap08 og
01. 11. 2007
0 views

chap08 og

handout 184637
05. 11. 2007
0 views

handout 184637

2004 harm present
05. 11. 2007
0 views

2004 harm present

E DESC AK PACOM POL CONF ver31
13. 11. 2007
0 views

E DESC AK PACOM POL CONF ver31

bedeutung innovation
15. 11. 2007
0 views

bedeutung innovation

Parity01 grames slides
23. 11. 2007
0 views

Parity01 grames slides

GA Conf07Lomas
13. 12. 2007
0 views

GA Conf07Lomas

CooperativeLearning
17. 12. 2007
0 views

CooperativeLearning

Friendship 1
23. 12. 2007
0 views

Friendship 1

plant lifecycles
28. 12. 2007
0 views

plant lifecycles

Millay
28. 12. 2007
0 views

Millay

alterman pki 05 13 01
01. 01. 2008
0 views

alterman pki 05 13 01

RMA 2005
02. 01. 2008
0 views

RMA 2005

OH
04. 01. 2008
0 views

OH

pp Bioeconomy Polansky Dec2007
04. 01. 2008
0 views

pp Bioeconomy Polansky Dec2007

nazca lines
07. 01. 2008
0 views

nazca lines

4330IBS
30. 10. 2007
0 views

4330IBS

Wk4 Mon
04. 01. 2008
0 views

Wk4 Mon

lh1
21. 11. 2007
0 views

lh1

econ and mgnt of privatization
20. 11. 2007
0 views

econ and mgnt of privatization

jre imps2005
06. 11. 2007
0 views

jre imps2005

EE541 451 class29
28. 11. 2007
0 views

EE541 451 class29

Aquatic Equipment
08. 11. 2007
0 views

Aquatic Equipment

WomensEmploymentJan2 001
24. 02. 2008
0 views

WomensEmploymentJan2 001

1025 QM05 Nardi
29. 10. 2007
0 views

1025 QM05 Nardi

wendybear
24. 12. 2007
0 views

wendybear

Martinac
14. 03. 2008
0 views

Martinac

DynaMed
25. 10. 2007
0 views

DynaMed

IntStu
27. 03. 2008
0 views

IntStu

Country Risk Sep07
13. 04. 2008
0 views

Country Risk Sep07

2003 lecture crypto1
31. 12. 2007
0 views

2003 lecture crypto1

robo lectures
14. 11. 2007
0 views

robo lectures

Ders1
29. 12. 2007
0 views

Ders1

REDLOBSTER
07. 12. 2007
0 views

REDLOBSTER

WarmUps WHII
25. 12. 2007
0 views

WarmUps WHII

pres riccardo
30. 10. 2007
0 views

pres riccardo

Chapt3overhead
12. 11. 2007
0 views

Chapt3overhead

SHFA280301
28. 11. 2007
0 views

SHFA280301

IfA jan03v1
15. 11. 2007
0 views

IfA jan03v1