Women and the law 2

Bostock v. Clayton County

*Fired for being gay

* Majority: this was sex discrim so T7 applied

* Dissent: overreach. cong needs to rewrite policy, not judges

General Electric v Gilbert

* Not discrim to treat pregnancy as a nondisability in employer health plans

* Majority: no gender difference since men can't be pregnant

* Dissent: GE has a history of woman discrim. Also not including pregnancy only hurts women

Price Waterhouse v Hopkins

* Only woman in line to make partner turned down

* Stereotyping - deemed "too aggressive"

* Majority - gender stereotyping is sex discrim. Mix-motive framework: both legit and discrim reasons may have influenced an employment decision

1. burden on employee - this is why the decision was made

2. would the same decision have been made even w/o the sex factor?

3. if yes, back pay and damages

* Dissent - burden of proof for employers

McDouglas v Green - 3-stage test (overturned by Price)

1. plaintiff shows prima facie evidence of discrim

2. defendant provides explanation

3. plaintiff shows explanation is bs

Geduldig v Aiello

non-coverage of pregnancy doesn't violate EPC

* still legal

1978 Pregnancy Disability Act

overrides Gilbert since Gilbert uses T7, which was amended

Burlington Industries v Ellerth

SH, but she didn't face repercussions

* M - employers are liable for supervisors, even if nothing bad happened to the employee

2-part employer defense

1. employer exercised reasonable care to prevent/correct SH

2. employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive options offered by employer

* Dissent - employer should only be held liable if negligent

Gebser v Lago Vista

* student-teacher SH

M - school district isn't liable for T9** damages unless official w/ authority to address it knew AND was indifferent

* D - burden on students

Students have same standard as supervisors (Davis case)

American Nurses Association v Illinois

* nurses paid less in their field than male fields of similar worth

* plaintiffs' complaint could not be dismissed if it could be seen as sex discrim

United Auto Workers v Johnson Controls

* banned women from working around lead due to pregnancy issues, which men also face

* M - banned sex-specific fetal protection policies. not justified as bona fide

BFOQs

ability to do the job - actors, prison workers

Borelli v Brusseau

* sick husband, agreed to leave wife property if she took care of him

M - civil code of marriage includes caring for a sick spouse. duties cannot be delegated, cannot alter marriage contract

D - spouses had an agreement

in re Marriage of Bonds

- validity of a prenup

- must be upheld UNLESS proven entered involuntarily OR contract was unconscionable

M - wife had attorney, so eventho her English wasn't good, she knew what she was signing up for. CA is a community property state

* CA CODE ALTERED so if prenup not entered voluntarily, consconable, AND not given full disclosure/waive

Diosdado v Diosdado

- contract included obligation of fidelity w/ liquidated damages

M - contract not enforceable due to no fault

Obergefell v Hodges

- EPC violated since no right to marry OR recognition to out-of-state marriage

Harris v Forklift Systems

- hostile environment

- reasonable person must find environment abusive AND victim must also find it abusive

- injury of worker

types of SH

quid pro quo - supervisor, blackmail

hostile environment

Title VII

applies to all employers in interstate commerce. can't fire or refuse to hire based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, national origin

Equal Pay Act

amendment to Fair Labor Standards Act

- can't pay m/f different wages for the SAME/highly similar job

EPA exceptions

seniority

merit

quantity/quality-based production

any factor other than sex

EO 11246/11375

prohibit racial/religious discrim in workplaces by FED CONTRACTORS

overruled by Trump

procedural path of T7 complaints

1. bring complaints to EEOC, not directly to court

2. long process due to volume of complaints

3. most cases resolved in eeoc and don't need court

patterns of T7 complaints

usually rule against plaintiff

EEOC CANNOT make final judgements nor enact sanctions

Davis v Monroe County

Harassment by students

Dissent: dangerous to make schools liable for student SH since it happens all the time, and is part of growing up, ppl harassed need to learn how to deal with it

Majority: students have the same standard as teachers. Schools have same responsibility to deal with this SH

Scotus has not dealt with any issues of SH this century

Gertner - Loser's Rule

cases are usually ruled in favor of the employer. only need to write detailed opinions when summary judgement granted. decisions heuristics - justify pro-defendant outcomes. ppl also assume workplace discrim is decreasing, which it isn't

disparate TREATMENT

explicit, formal, intentional discrim

disparate IMPACT

not direct nor intentional

3-part analytic scheme

1. plaintiff shows prima facie evidence of discrim

2. defendant provides non-discrim explanation

3. plaintiff shows that the explanation wasn't the real reason for the discrim (burden of proof)

sex-plus

employer discrims based on sex and another factor

comparable worth

women jobs have historically been undervalued and underpaid. compare to a male job of similar skill, and adjust pay

BFOQ

cannot be race. positions where it's okay to not hire certain ppl for efficiency of doing the role.

marriage, traditionally

contract - husband provides, woman keeps the house

merger of identities

conspiracy, interspousal immunity from lawsuits, doctrine of necessaries

common law

traditional, judge, made

keep the % of what YOU obtained during the marriage

communal property

equal and joint property rights

dominant rule

cannot modify statutory rights for property obtained DURING marriage

Baehr v Lewin

HI - challenged gay marriage ban. ruled the case could be heard on EPC grounds. before reheard, state did a new cons provision banning gay marriage

US v Windsor

dead wife, got inheritance, had to pay tax bc her gay marriage wasn't recognized federally. m- EPC issue

Marvin v Marvin

- she gave up her career to be a homemaker. he promised they'd share property and wealth

- rationale: unmarried cohabitation becoming more common in society

- couple had an agreement, and a court should enforce couple's contracts

Express Contracts: Courts can enforce express agreements between unmarried partners, as long as they are not based on sexual services.

Implied Contracts: In the absence of an express agreement, courts can examine the conduct of the parties to determine if there was an implied contract or understanding.

Equitable Remedies: Courts may use equitable principles, like constructive trusts or quantum meruit, to resolve disputes.

gov benefits for unmarried children

recover death damages

disability benefits

med benefits, domestic leave

colleges, private companies extend