菜单
拳头

未受保护:您的(缺乏)权利的快速指南

I didn’t plan our launch 这个 way at all. Originally, I planned to talk about how today is the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of 第七题. I wanted to write about how incredibly important 第七题 has been to 这个 country. I wanted to write about what it meant to have laws on the books that said we, women, were entitled to the protection of our federal government when we were at work. I wanted to write about how generations of women (my own included) have been able to imagine 和 craft lives for themselves that would have been unthinkable fifty years earlier. This is true because 第七题 opened the doors to the justice system to working women. I envisioned an uplifting piece that, while acknowledging how far we have yet to go, really celebrated how far we have come.

在思想上概述这一令人鼓舞的叙述时,我权衡了适当的角度。我应该分享以下故事吗 我热情的客户 谁曾使用Title VII有所作为?我应该专注于 统计与研究 在什么地方以什么速度取得了进展?我应该复习非常真实,非常 有意义的改革 过去发生过第七章诉讼吗?

最高法院的裁决 在臭名昭著的星期一 爱好大厅 情况转移了这一切。显然,对于该决定已经写了很多可靠的分析,例如 这个这个。正如预期的那样,最初的政治和公众反应是两个截然相反的 光谱的末端。这场对话中存在着某些争执,这些争执不可避免地会导致人们之间的分歧-关于宗教和生殖以及司法机构的适当角色与国会的适当角色的争论。这些争端使我们分裂为两极分化的难民营。

但是,有些事情不容易左右左右,任何关注的人都应该关心。最重要的是,最高法院的裁决 爱好大厅 is part of a larger trend. When given a chance, the Supreme Court will protect employers (especially large corporations) at the expense of the hard-working Americans who are that corporation’s employees. 的re are too many decisions in the last few years that illustrate 这个 point for me to review all of them. When read all together, though, it is quite clear that the Supreme Court is committed to doing 一切 它可以为寻求正义的员工关闭法庭的大门。

首先,在2011年4月27日, ATT Mobility诉Concepcion. Five of the nine justices ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act should be applied broadly. This sounds boring, but what it means in real life is that employers are able to require employees give up their rights to actually go to court when they believe their employer has broken the law. Instead, employers can force employees to go into a secret process where instead of a judge or a jury, there is a decision-maker who is paid 通过 the very same employer that the worker is trying to sue. I am not kidding. You just read that correctly. Later cases have expanded 这个 rule to also say that employers can also require employees entirely give up their right to join with other employees in a class action when in forced arbitration.

仅仅几个月后, 沃尔玛诉杜克. On June 20, 2011, that same group of five justices issued a ruling that made it significantly more difficult for employees to band together when trying to hold corporations accountable for breaking our nation’s antidiscrimination 和 labor laws—even when they are able to avoid forced arbitration 和 proceed in courts. 的 practical effect of the 沃尔玛 裁定员工面临大卫和巨人的情况,在许多情况下,美国人别无选择,只能自己与大型的国家或跨国公司(拥有数十亿美元的资源)竞争。这不是成功的基础。

在随后的几年中,写下这些观点的五个人也做出了其他决定, 更轻松更轻松 for employers to push even the most meritorious of cases out of court. In order to protect corporations in 这个 way, the five men on the Supreme Court issuing these decisions – Chief Justice John Roberts 和 Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy 和 Samuel Alito – were forced to rely on increasingly absurd misstatements of the evidence in the cases 和 increasingly bizarre contortions of the law. For a good sense of how crazy 这个 five-man majority has been in issuing these pro-employer decisions, just read some of the inspiring 和 严厉反对 金斯堡大法官写的

这使我们回到 爱好大厅。再次,金斯堡法官摇摆着篱笆,创作了 热情和该死的 否决了五人多数制,决定与其雇主并肩作战以损害其雇员的利益。的 爱好大厅 意见应得到的。它是荒谬的。它说,公司可以通过对宗教自由进行保护而不受联邦法律的约束。最初旨在保护小人物和大人物(强势政府)利益的保护措施。

Employees of America, if the Supreme Court is allowed to have its way, it would leave us all as unprotected every day in the workplace as it has now left working women who are too poor to be able to afford contraception on their own. And make no mistake about who bears the brunt of being unprotected. It is the women, the people of color, the disabled 和 the old.

打破天花板的妇女的节育覆盖率

问题是,我们都将对此做些什么?因为放弃是不可行的。

凯瑟琳·金佩尔

凯瑟琳·金佩尔

凯特·金佩尔(Kate Kimpel)是 高级编辑 of 打破天花板 和 is also an accomplished civil rights lawyer. She represents women 和 people of color in discrimination cases (and other kinds of employment 和 civil rights matters).  When not lawyering, she likely is bragging about her hound dog Ulysses, inventing cocktails to serve at her next dinner party, or convincing her husband to watch reruns of a Joss Whedon television show (any of them will do). 

分片4 分片5 碎片7 分片9 分片10 碎片11