Sexy Dressing Revisited: Does Target Dress Play A Part in Sexual Harassment Cases?

Feminists have been debating what constitutes appropriate female attire since the beginning of the feminist movement in the United States. Since the early 1990s, when Naomi Wolf\u27s book The Beauty Myth was released, feminists, law professors, and popular culture critics have tried to understand women\u27s dress in the present day. In spite of years of criticism of these beliefs, the bias this injects into rape trials, and even with the enactment of rape shield laws, this evidence still sneaks into rape cases. With this in mind, one would expect a similar phenomenon to occur in sexual harassment cases. As the Supreme Court stated in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, no per se rule exists barring the admissibility of evidence of a victim\u27s provocative dress and publicly expressed sexual fantasies. Meritor opened the door to the admission of such evidence in the sexual harassment context

When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review of Unequal: How America\u27s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law by Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017)

In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason for the courts’ frequent dismissal of these claims. Instead, the book seeks to expose how these seemingly erroneous dismissals occur and suggest avenues for reforming these legal standards. This Review begins by describing the book’s main arguments. Throughout this description, the Review supports and at times challenges some of the authors’ positions. In particular, this Review examines arguments regarding the role politics play in the courts’ decisionmaking in employment discrimination cases. It also explores the ironic result that the courts’ approaches to these cases actually may lead to more discrimination in the workplace and therefore more cases. Finally, this Review describes the authors’ suggestions for reform and proposes that changes in this area of the law are best accomplished by the entities that created the problems—the courts

White Male Heterosexist Norms in the Confirmation Process

Justice Sonia Sotomayor\u27s confirmation hearing took a controversial turn when commentators picked up on a reference in the New York Times to a portion of a speech she gave in 2001. In that speech, then Judge Sotomayor opined that, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn\u27t lived that life. That statement, along with her participation in the per curiam decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, caused a minor storm during her confirmation. More recently, former Harvard Dean and former Solicitor General Elena Kagan came under fire during her confirmation hearing for supporting her faculty\u27s position on the military\u27s treatment of gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers and her opposition to don\u27t ask don\u27t tell. This led some conservative commentators to speculate that she is a Lesbian. Both Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were attacked for bringing a perspective to the bench that supported minority groups - whether it be Latinas, women, or the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered communities. Yet, having judges who understand these perspectives would no doubt add diversity to the bench. Juxtaposing arguments in favor of a diverse bench with the treatment of these two Supreme Court nominees leads one to wonder whether those in public office are really interested in true diversity on the bench. Could it be, instead, that it is only acceptable for a judicial candidate to be diverse or have sympathy for minority communities if he or she does not act on them and instead complies with established white male norms? The brouhaha that both Justice Sotomayor\u27s comment engendered and Justice Kagan\u27s position created makes one wonder how truly committed to diversity on the bench or protecting minority groups those in public office really are. This article examines the affects of diversity on the bench, the confirmation processes for these two justices and contrasts it with the arguments in favor of a diverse bench. Ironically, these two well-qualified nominees were criticized during the confirmation process for fear that they would bring diverse perspectives to the bench and for their ultimate failure to conform to white heterosexist norms