The law of employment discrimination : cases and materials
著者
書誌事項
The law of employment discrimination : cases and materials
(University casebook series)
Foundation Press, c2020
13th ed
大学図書館所蔵 全1件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Includes bibliographical references and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
This casebook covers all major aspects of employment discrimination law, including benchmark legislative, administrative, and judicial developments. Due in part to frequent updates and revisions, it has received accolades as one of the most comprehensive and frequently updated texts on the market. The 13th Edition continues this tradition by seamlessly incorporating all major legislative and judicial developments through July 2020, including all relevant decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in its 2019-2020 term. In its most significant ruling, Bostock v. Clayton Country Georgia, the Court brought closure and clarity to an issue that the federal courts had struggled with for decades; holding that Title VII's ban on sex-based discrimination extends to claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, transgender status, and all other forms of gender identity. It resolved another circuit conflict in Comcast Corp. v. National Ass'n of African American-Owned Media, by ruling that mixed motive analysis is not available in suits brought under 1981. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court expanded upon its prior articulation of the standard to be applied in determining whether a religious entity's employee constituted a "minister" for purposes of invoking the "church-minister" exception. And in Babb v. Wilkie, the Court held that federal employees, unlike private sector and nonfederal public employees, could assert a mixed motive claim to establish liability under the ADEA, but were required to prove that age was the "but for" cause of the alleged discriminatory act in order to obtain affirmative relief. Finally, among the lower court decisions added in this edition is Rizo v. Yovino, an important Equal Pay Act opinion by the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc which examines whether the use of market forces as a basis for setting salaries is a nondiscriminatory factor other than sex.
「Nielsen BookData」 より