162 records matched your query       

05474aam a2200409 i 4500
001 9D5E086C403511EB87AA299C42ECA4DB
003 SILO
005 20201217010015
008 200324t20202020enk      b    001 0 eng  
010    $a 2020013353
020    $a 1108717403
020    $a 9781108717403
020    $a 1108493173
020    $a 9781108493178
035    $a (OCoLC)1149270482
040    $a DLC $b eng $e rda $c DLC $d OCLCO $d OCLCF $d YDX $d ERASA $d YDX $d SILO
042    $a pcc
043    $a n-us---
050 00 $a KF3467 $b .F46 2020
245 00 $a Feminist judgments : $b rewritten employment discrimination opinions/ $c edited by Ann C. McGinley, Nicole Buonocore Porter.
264  1 $a Cambridge, United Kingdom ; $b Cambridge University Press, $c 2020.
300    $a xxv, 508 pages ; $c 23 cm.
490 1  $a Feminist judgment series
504    $a Includes bibliographical references and index.
505 0  $a Introduction / Ann C. McGinley and Nicole Buonocore Porter -- Supreme Court and Gender Narratives : Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa , 539 U.S. 90 (2003) / Commentary: Naomi M. Mann, Judgment: Anne Mullins -- Pregnancy Discrimination : Int'l Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991) / Commentary: Wynter Allen, Judgment: Marcia McCormick ; Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1338 (2015) / Commentary: Bradley Areheart, Judgment: Deborah Widiss -- Appearances : Intersectional Approaches : Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co ., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) / Commentary: Roxanna Bell, Authors of Rewritten Opinion: Angela Onwuachi-Willig and JoAnne Sweeney ; E.E.O.C. v. Catastrophe Management Solutions , 852 F. 3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2016) / Commentary: Jaspir (Jesse) Bawa, Judgment: D. Wendy Greene ; Webb v. City of Philadelphia , 562 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2009) / Commentary: Sahar Aziz, Judgment: Valorie Vojdik -- Harassment Because of Sex : Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) / Author of (New) Commentary: Trina Jones, Author of (Reproduced) Rewritten Opinion: Angela Onwuachi-Willig ; Oncale v. Sundowner Services , 523 U.S. 75 (1998) / Author of (New) Commentary: Nancy E. Dowd, Author of (Reproduced) Rewritten Opinion: Ann C. McGinley -- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination as Sex Discrimination : Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority , 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) / Commentary: Pamela Wilkins, Judgment: Catherine Archibald ; Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College , 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) / Commentary: Danielle D. Weatherby, Judgment: Ryan H. Nelson -- Systemic Claims and Gender : Proving Disparate Treatment and Impact : AFSCME v. State of Washington , 770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985) / Commentary: Stephanie Bornstein, Judgment: Teresa Godwin Phelps ; E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co ., 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988) / Commentary: Maria Ontiveros, Judgment: Leticia Saucedo ; Ricci v. DeStefano , 557 U.S. 557 (2009) / Commentary: Rebecca K. Lee, Judgment: Marley Weiss ; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338 (2011) / Commentary: Charles Sullivan, Judgment: Tristin Green -- Retaliation : Clark County School District v. Breeden , 532 U.S. 268 (2001) / Commentary: Rebecca Hanner White, Judgment: Michael Z. Green.
520    $a "Could feminist perspectives and methods change the shape of employment discrimination law? To answer this question, we assembled a group of scholars and lawyers to use feminist perspectives and methodology to rewrite significant employment discrimination cases from the United States Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. This volume, like all of the books in Cambridge University Press's Feminist Judgments Series, demonstrates that judges with feminist viewpoints could have changed the law as well as the reasoning underlying the law, based on the precedent and other legal sources in effect at the time of the original decision. It demonstrates that use of feminist approaches can assure a more accurate and fair resolution of employment discrimination disputes, a resolution that more closely mirrors the purposes of the employment discrimination statutes. In essence, employment discrimination laws were enacted to protect the most vulnerable workers-those who are less powerful because of their age, race, color, sex, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, and religion-from discriminatory hiring, working conditions, promotions, and discharges. But unfortunately, the law has developed in ways that make it difficult for vulnerable workers who have suffered discrimination to prevail in their claims. Some of these reasons entail the complexity and difficulty of proving employment discrimination"-- $c Provided by publisher.
650  0 $a Sex discrimination in employment $x Cases. $z United States $x Cases.
650  0 $a Feminist jurisprudence $z United States.
650  7 $a Feminist jurisprudence. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst00922778
651  7 $a United States. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01204155
700 1  $a McGinley, Ann C., $e editor.
700 1  $a Porter, Nicole Buonocore, $e editor.
776 08 $i Online version: $t Feminist judgments. : rewritten employment discrimination opinions. $d Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, USA : Cambridge University Press, 2020 $z 9781108694643 $w (DLC)  2020013354
830  0 $a Feminist judgments series.
941    $a 1
952    $l OVUX522 $d 20231018012715.0
956    $a http://locator.silo.lib.ia.us/search.cgi?index_0=id&term_0=9D5E086C403511EB87AA299C42ECA4DB