Preempting Discrimination: Lessons from the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ( GINA\u27), enacted in May 2008, protects individuals against discrimination by insurance companies and employers on the basis of genetic information. GINA is not only the first civil rights law of the new millennium, but it is also the first preemptive antidiscrimination statute in American history. Traditionally, Congress has passed retrospective antidiscrimination legislation, reacting to existing discriminatory regimes. However, little evidence indicates that genetic-information discrimination is currently taking place on a significant scale. Thus, unlike the laws of the twentieth century, GINA attempts to eliminate a new brand of discrimination before it takes hold. This Article provides a detailed look at this unprecedented new statute, beginning with its initial introduction in 1995. Next, the Article examines the justifications for passing preemptive genetic-information discrimination legislation, concluding that Congress had twin objectives: a research justification and an antidiscrimination justification. Lastly, the Article explores the implications of passing antidiscrimination legislation absent a history of discrimination. It concludes that GINA\u27s preemptive nature may be both its greatest attribute and its deepest flaw

Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism

Older adults outnumbering children; Gerontology/geriatrics; Aging world population; The study of ageism; Ageism is the most prevalent form of discriminatio

The Precariat

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. This book presents the Precariat – an emerging class, comprising the rapidly growing number of people facing lives of insecurity, moving in and out of jobs that give little meaning to their lives. Guy Standing argues that this class is producing instabilities in society. Although it would be wrong to characterise members of the Precariat as victims, many are frustrated and angry. The Precariat is dangerous because it is internally divided, leading to the villainisation of migrants and other vulnerable groups. Lacking agency, its members may be susceptible to the siren calls of political extremism. To prevent a ‘politics of inferno’, Guy Standing argues for a ‘politics of paradise’, in which redistribution and income security are reconfi gured in a new kind of Good Society, and in which the fears and aspirations of the Precariat are made central to a progressive strategy

Some Effects of Identity-Based Social Movements on Constitutional Law in the Twentieth Century

What motivated big changes in constitutional law doctrine during the twentieth century? Rarely did important constitutional doctrine or theory change because of formal amendments to the document\u27s text, and rarer still because scholars or judges discovered new information about the Constitution\u27s original meaning. Precedent and common law reasoning were the mechanisms by which changes occurred rather than their driving force. My thesis is that most twentieth century changes in the constitutional protection of individual rights were driven by or in response to the great identity-based social movements ( IBSMs ) of the twentieth century. Race, sex, and sexual orientation were markers of social inferiority and legal exclusion throughout the twentieth century. People of color, women, and gay4 people all came to resist their social and legal disabilities in the civil rights movement seeking to end apartheid; various feminist movements seeking women\u27s control over their own bodies and equal rights with men; and the gay rights movement, seeking equal rights for lesbigay and transgendered people. All these social movements sought to change positive law and social norms. In both endeavors, constitutional litigation was critically important. Specifically, these IBSMs became involved in constitutional litigation as part of three different kinds of politics in which they were engaged: their own politics of protection against state-sponsored threats to the life, liberty, and property of its members; their politics of recognition, seeking to end legal discriminations and exclusions of group members and to establish legal protections against private discrimination; and a politics of remediation, to rectify material as well as stigmatic legacies of previous state discrimination. At every stage, but particularly the last, these IBSMs were confronted with a politics of preservation, whereby countermovements sought to limit or roll back legal protections won or sought by the social movement.5 Each kind of politics offered opportunities for different kinds of constitutional arguments. The politics of protection most successfully invoked the First Amendment and the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution; the politics of recognition and remediation were most closely associated with the Equal Protection Clause; and the politics of preservation invoked arguments based upon constitutional federalism, separation of powers, and various libertarian doctrines

Current Human Rights Frameworks (Sherpa project of Smart Information Systems, Horizon 2020, 2019)

Smart Information Systems (SIS), which are a combination of big data analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI), constitute an integral part of our lives. From Google search, Amazon’s Alexa, surgery robots, digital libraries, location-based devices, affective computing, and human machine symbiosis, almost everybody in high-income regions is affected by SIS on daily basis. Meanwhile, human rights and ethics discussions about SIS are taking place whilst the technologies are already omnipresent. The UK House of Lords, the UNESCO, the European Commission and the Pope, are only a few examples of those working on the human rights and ethics aspects of SIS

Some Effects of Identity-Based Social Movements on Constitutional Law in the Twentieth Century

What motivated big changes in constitutional law doctrine during the twentieth century? Rarely did important constitutional doctrine or theory change because of formal amendments to the document\u27s text, and rarer still because scholars or judges discovered new information about the Constitution\u27s original meaning. Precedent and common law reasoning were the mechanisms by which changes occurred rather than their driving force. My thesis is that most twentieth century changes in the constitutional protection of individual rights were driven by or in response to the great identity-based social movements ( IBSMs ) of the twentieth century. Race, sex, and sexual orientation were markers of social inferiority and legal exclusion throughout the twentieth century. People of color, women, and gay4 people all came to resist their social and legal disabilities in the civil rights movement seeking to end apartheid; various feminist movements seeking women\u27s control over their own bodies and equal rights with men; and the gay rights movement, seeking equal rights for lesbigay and transgendered people. All these social movements sought to change positive law and social norms. In both endeavors, constitutional litigation was critically important. Specifically, these IBSMs became involved in constitutional litigation as part of three different kinds of politics in which they were engaged: their own politics of protection against state-sponsored threats to the life, liberty, and property of its members; their politics of recognition, seeking to end legal discriminations and exclusions of group members and to establish legal protections against private discrimination; and a politics of remediation, to rectify material as well as stigmatic legacies of previous state discrimination. At every stage, but particularly the last, these IBSMs were confronted with a politics of preservation, whereby countermovements sought to limit or roll back legal protections won or sought by the social movement.5 Each kind of politics offered opportunities for different kinds of constitutional arguments. The politics of protection most successfully invoked the First Amendment and the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution; the politics of recognition and remediation were most closely associated with the Equal Protection Clause; and the politics of preservation invoked arguments based upon constitutional federalism, separation of powers, and various libertarian doctrines

Corporate activism in the age of LGBT equality: the promise and limitations of the modern executive champion of LGBT rights

Over the course of the last 60 years, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) rights movement in the United States has become a beacon of light around the world where LGBT persons continue to face intolerance, discrimination, persecution, and death. As this qualitative phenomenological study was being written, LGBT Americans taking advantage of their legal rights to marry, still face employment discrimination, housing discrimination, adoption discrimination, immigration discrimination, and discrimination in public accommodations including a Presidential Executive Order, state, and local legislation forcing transgender people to use the restroom that reflects their assigned gender at birth. In fact, in almost three dozen states an LGBT person could exercise their legal right to get married and still legally get fired from their job, legally get kicked out of their apartment by their landlord, and get denied an adoption simply because they are LGBT without other legal protections. Each of these issues has an effect on employee recruitment, retention, and performance and an effect in terms of creating an organizational culture where all employees can thrive without fear of retaliation, retribution, or being unaffirmed in the workplace. Affirmative corporate activism in the form of company supported LGBT employee resource groups/business resource groups, LGBT serving volunteer efforts, philanthropy, and public policy advocacy efforts combined have helped to make corporate America a critical ally in the movement for LGBT legal quality. This qualitative phenomenological study examines how LGBT employee resource group/business group leaders and executive champions influence corporate activism on LGBT issues. The rise of elected conservative leadership in the United States and around the world challenges the espoused values of corporate leaders on LGBT issues. This conservative revolution challenging the gains of the LGBT movement also creates an opportunity for corporate America to develop standards, practices, and policies. Although LGBT people outside of corporate America are likely to remain far from vulnerable to an increasingly more hostile government, corporate America has a unique opportunity to develop best practices and strategies to keep employees safe, make their customers feel welcome, while testing and learning scalable corporate social responsibility solutions