Protection against LGBT harassment should not be reduced to protection against gender stereotypes

Drew CULLER, “The price of Price Waterhouse: how title VII reduces the lives of LGBT Americans to sex and gender stereotypes”, Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 2017, vol.25:4, p.509.

In the US, there is no specific federal legislation against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 does not protect against sexual orientation discrimination in the work place: it only protects against employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. Despite this lack of direct protection, the standards laid out by the Supreme Court in the case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 248-49 (1989) have been used to protect the LGBT community in various cases presented by the author. Indeed, denying a benefit to an employee because of traditional stereotypes associated with her or his sex violates Title VII. However, the author criticises this method because it only protects an appearance and a behaviour instead of the fact of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual: therefore, members of the LGBT community who are gender conforming are not protected. To avoid this, the author discusses possible alternatives that the federal legislator or the courts may adopt.
Direct to the article (jgspl.org)

Multiparental families

Abraham HAIM, “A family is what you make it? Legal recognition and regulation of multiple parents”, Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 2017, vol.25:3, p.405.

The author first identifies three possible parental statutes (parentage, parenthood and parental responsibilities), five possible approaches for their allocation (marital presumption, psychological approach, functional approach, genetic/biological approaches and intention-based approach) and five possible multiparental structures (assisted reproductive technology families, co-parenting families, stepfamilies, open adoption families and kinship carer families). He then refutes the arguments against the recognition of multiparents. Subsequently, he analyses how legislatures and courts in England (UK), in British Columbia (Canada) and in California (USA) have recognised multiparents. Finally, he suggests a new approach for the recognition and regulation of multiparents. He pleads for a system able to cater all multiparental structures and guided by the parents’ intention and the child's best interest.
Direct to the article (www.jgspl.org)

Black feminist analysis of the Brexit

UK - 2017
Sweta RAJAN-RANKIN, “Brexit Logics: Myth and Fact – A Black Feminist Analysis”, Feminists@law, 2017, vol.7:2.

In this article, the author first refutes the idea of the leave vote as caused by a disenfranchised working class expressing their discontent with a liberal elite government. Spatial analysis shows that it was the white middle-class of Southerners and not the Northern class of workers, who predominantly voted for the Brexit. The author then shows how racism and xenoracism have played an important role in the leave vote. She observes that the rhetoric “British jobs for British people” does not intend to protect a nation of citizens but a nation of white people, and that the “stolen jobs” in question are performed by racialised (specifically female) workers who accept to do poorly paid jobs which white British (male) workers do not seek.
Direct to the article (journals.kent.ac.uk)

Violenza domestica e minori: profilo di tutela europea e nazionale

Relazione di Valeria Tevere e Anna Iermano tenuta al simposio di Madrid.

Dopo una breve introduzione, la relazione affronta le norme europee di tutela delle vittime di violenza domestica (Convenzione di Istanbul in particolare). Segue un capitolo sull’Ordinamento italiano e tutela dei minori a proposito della violenza intra-familiare assistita (cioè presenti i figli) e infine considerazioni conclusive sulla situazione italiana.
Accesso diretto alla relazione (www.adgi.eu)