Pub Date : 2005-04-01DOI: 10.2190/G350-1H17-5227-4421
Debra D. Burke, L. Wilson
Although the theory of disparate impact discrimination was not initially cognizable under Title VII, the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Company recognized its viability [1]. Prior to Griggs, individuals could only make a claim under Title VII if they could prove disparate treatment, which occurs when an employer intentionally treats members of a protected class less favorably because of their status in that class. Disparate impact discrimination occurs when an employer’s facially neutral employment practice adversely affects a person in a protected class, and that fact cannot be explained by business necessity. While disparate impact actions have been recognized under the Civil Rights Act since 1971, the circuit courts disagreed whether this theory of discrimination applied to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This article examines the 2005 Supreme Court decision that recognized the ADEA authorizes recovery in disparate impact cases. It is commonly known that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes a number of employment actions unlawful [2]. At the time the act was passed, Congress considered and rejected amendments to the act that would have included older workers in the protected classes of Title VII [3]. However, the secretary of labor subsequently investigated the issue of age discrimination and concluded that it was common for employees to be discriminated against the workplace because of their age and inaccurate stereotypes about the abilities of older workers [4]. As a
{"title":"Disparate Impact Discrimination and the ADEA: Coming of Age","authors":"Debra D. Burke, L. Wilson","doi":"10.2190/G350-1H17-5227-4421","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/G350-1H17-5227-4421","url":null,"abstract":"Although the theory of disparate impact discrimination was not initially cognizable under Title VII, the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Company recognized its viability [1]. Prior to Griggs, individuals could only make a claim under Title VII if they could prove disparate treatment, which occurs when an employer intentionally treats members of a protected class less favorably because of their status in that class. Disparate impact discrimination occurs when an employer’s facially neutral employment practice adversely affects a person in a protected class, and that fact cannot be explained by business necessity. While disparate impact actions have been recognized under the Civil Rights Act since 1971, the circuit courts disagreed whether this theory of discrimination applied to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This article examines the 2005 Supreme Court decision that recognized the ADEA authorizes recovery in disparate impact cases. It is commonly known that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes a number of employment actions unlawful [2]. At the time the act was passed, Congress considered and rejected amendments to the act that would have included older workers in the protected classes of Title VII [3]. However, the secretary of labor subsequently investigated the issue of age discrimination and concluded that it was common for employees to be discriminated against the workplace because of their age and inaccurate stereotypes about the abilities of older workers [4]. As a","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127419461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-04-01DOI: 10.2190/8733-70W7-3576-6823
Catherine C. Giapponi, S. McEvoy
Despite the fact that the Equal Pay Act has been law since 1963, women’s pay lags behind men’s at every occupational level. Congress is now considering bills, like the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, to remedy salary inequities. This article explores the topic of pay equity as it relates to gender discrimination and provides a review of the research and literature related to the gender pay gap issue. The authors argue that the enforcement of existing law offers more promise in ameliorating pay disparities than does the proposed Fair Pay Act. The authors further contend that there are barriers to change, including social and cultural factors, which have limited the reach and effectiveness of the law in reducing the gender pay disparity. In April 2005, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced the Fair Pay Act of 2005 to address pay difference between white men and women and minorities [1]. The legislation “would address the historic pattern of undervaluating and underpaying so-called women’s jobs” [2]. The bill says that “where working conditions are similar, wages should also be similar” [2].The proposed legislation seeks to address the gender wage-gap issue that has plagued the workplace for decades. Gender-based wage disparity continues to spark discussion, research, and proposals for remedy. A national group, Business and Professional Women USA,
尽管《同工同酬法》(Equal Pay Act)自1963年以来就已成为法律，但在各个职业级别，女性的薪酬都落后于男性。国会目前正在考虑法案，如《公平薪酬法案》和《工资公平法案》，以纠正工资不平等。本文探讨了与性别歧视相关的薪酬平等问题，并对与性别薪酬差距问题相关的研究和文献进行了综述。作者认为，在改善薪酬差距方面，执行现有法律比拟议中的《公平薪酬法》更有希望。作者进一步认为，有一些阻碍变革的因素，包括社会和文化因素，限制了法律在减少男女薪酬差距方面的覆盖面和效力。2005年4月，爱荷华州民主党参议员汤姆·哈金(Tom Harkin)提出了《2005年公平薪酬法案》(Fair Pay Act of 2005)，以解决白人男女和少数族裔之间的薪酬差异问题[1]。这项立法“将解决所谓女性工作被低估和报酬过低的历史模式”[2]。该法案称“工作条件相似的地方，工资也应该相似”[2]。这项立法提案旨在解决困扰职场数十年的性别工资差距问题。基于性别的工资差距继续引发讨论、研究和补救建议。一个全国性的组织，美国商业和职业女性，
{"title":"The Legal, Ethical, and Strategic Implications of Gender Discrimination in Compensation: Can the Fair Pay Act Succeed Where the Equal Pay Act has Failed?","authors":"Catherine C. Giapponi, S. McEvoy","doi":"10.2190/8733-70W7-3576-6823","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/8733-70W7-3576-6823","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the fact that the Equal Pay Act has been law since 1963, women’s pay lags behind men’s at every occupational level. Congress is now considering bills, like the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, to remedy salary inequities. This article explores the topic of pay equity as it relates to gender discrimination and provides a review of the research and literature related to the gender pay gap issue. The authors argue that the enforcement of existing law offers more promise in ameliorating pay disparities than does the proposed Fair Pay Act. The authors further contend that there are barriers to change, including social and cultural factors, which have limited the reach and effectiveness of the law in reducing the gender pay disparity. In April 2005, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced the Fair Pay Act of 2005 to address pay difference between white men and women and minorities [1]. The legislation “would address the historic pattern of undervaluating and underpaying so-called women’s jobs” [2]. The bill says that “where working conditions are similar, wages should also be similar” [2].The proposed legislation seeks to address the gender wage-gap issue that has plagued the workplace for decades. Gender-based wage disparity continues to spark discussion, research, and proposals for remedy. A national group, Business and Professional Women USA,","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"56 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129300090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-04-01DOI: 10.2190/Q506-R037-3740-M701
J. A. Mello
{"title":"Navigating the Land Mines of the Family and Medical Leave Act","authors":"J. A. Mello","doi":"10.2190/Q506-R037-3740-M701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/Q506-R037-3740-M701","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"336 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124307178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The first part of this article reviews literature and case law on disciplining employees for free speech, whistle blowing, and political activities. It focuses on the extent to which an employer regulates off-the-job behaviors of its employees. Although this is not a treatise on the underlying law, the authors discuss constitutional law (especially the First Amendment), limitations on at-will employment, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, and some state laws and the potential impact of these on the employer’s behavior. The second section reviews and analyzes the results of litigation over an eleven-year period to determine the win/lose rates in the relevant courtroom battles and whether those rates have changed with an increasingly protective public policy.
{"title":"Disciplining Employees for Free Speech, Whistle Blowing, and Political Activities","authors":"Helen LaVan, Marsha Katz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2612504","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2612504","url":null,"abstract":"The first part of this article reviews literature and case law on disciplining employees for free speech, whistle blowing, and political activities. It focuses on the extent to which an employer regulates off-the-job behaviors of its employees. Although this is not a treatise on the underlying law, the authors discuss constitutional law (especially the First Amendment), limitations on at-will employment, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, and some state laws and the potential impact of these on the employer’s behavior. The second section reviews and analyzes the results of litigation over an eleven-year period to determine the win/lose rates in the relevant courtroom battles and whether those rates have changed with an increasingly protective public policy.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128142200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-04-01DOI: 10.2190/0811-177W-4857-W535
H. Findley, Cherie Fretwell, R. Wheatley, Earl E. Ingram
Many employers and researchers believe that even-handed dress and grooming standards are legal. However, in certain situations there can be serious legal pitfalls for those who adhere to this practice. Exceptions to dress and grooming standards may be required based on religion, freedom of expression, collective bargaining rights, and more recently, on sex. In an evolving part of the case law, dress and grooming standards based on sex-role stereotypes even-handedly applied are more often being ruled illegal by the courts. Moreover, many states protect dress as it relates to sexual preference. The relevant legal case history is reviewed and guiding principles provided. The manner in which people dress goes to the heart and soul of who and what they are in terms of personality, identity, gender, attitudes, and abilities [1]. Attire affects one’s image and how s/he is perceived by managers, other employees, and customers [1]. Mindful that a person’s appearance is a reflection of the company’s image and often has a direct impact on the firm’s bottom line, many organizations construct and implement dress and grooming standards to ensure that the organization is portrayed in a positive and professional manner. Sometimes dress
{"title":"Dress and Grooming Standards: How Legal are They?","authors":"H. Findley, Cherie Fretwell, R. Wheatley, Earl E. Ingram","doi":"10.2190/0811-177W-4857-W535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/0811-177W-4857-W535","url":null,"abstract":"Many employers and researchers believe that even-handed dress and grooming standards are legal. However, in certain situations there can be serious legal pitfalls for those who adhere to this practice. Exceptions to dress and grooming standards may be required based on religion, freedom of expression, collective bargaining rights, and more recently, on sex. In an evolving part of the case law, dress and grooming standards based on sex-role stereotypes even-handedly applied are more often being ruled illegal by the courts. Moreover, many states protect dress as it relates to sexual preference. The relevant legal case history is reviewed and guiding principles provided. The manner in which people dress goes to the heart and soul of who and what they are in terms of personality, identity, gender, attitudes, and abilities [1]. Attire affects one’s image and how s/he is perceived by managers, other employees, and customers [1]. Mindful that a person’s appearance is a reflection of the company’s image and often has a direct impact on the firm’s bottom line, many organizations construct and implement dress and grooming standards to ensure that the organization is portrayed in a positive and professional manner. Sometimes dress","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125457767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-04-01DOI: 10.2190/2HGR-MN4E-QFLG-1EJG
Sandra J. Perry
This article reviews case law dealing with the Equal Pay Act as it applies to claims of pay discrimination by faculty in higher education. Elements of the cause of action, the four statutory defenses, and the need for a proper comparator of the opposite sex are discussed, as well as the use of statistical evidence, the statute of limitations and continuing violations, whether the Equal Pay Act abrogates the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states, and the results of several universities’ internal gender equity pay studies. It has been more than forty years since the passage of the Equal Pay Act, which was designed to eliminate pay discrimination based on sex by requiring equal pay for equal work [1]. Although women’s pay has increased since 1963, women still find that they earn on average only 78 percent of what men earn annually in the United States [2]. Faculty women in higher education similarly earn about 80 percent of what male faculty earn [3, p. 29]. There are two reasons for the overall lower salaries for faculty women compared to faculty men. One is that women are more likely to be employed at the lower paid rank of nontenure track lecturer or in unranked positions. The second is that women are more likely to be employed at associate and baccalaureate colleges where salaries are lower than at institutions that confer graduate degrees [3]. Not only do faculty women earn less on average than faculty men in higher education, but also in specific instances, faculty women have found that they are paid less than comparable male faculty of the same rank in their same institutions. In these situations, the Equal Pay Act may be violated. To understand whether an Equal Pay Act violation may have occurred, this article discusses the elements of
{"title":"EQUAL PAY ACT CASES IN HIGHER EDUCATION","authors":"Sandra J. Perry","doi":"10.2190/2HGR-MN4E-QFLG-1EJG","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/2HGR-MN4E-QFLG-1EJG","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews case law dealing with the Equal Pay Act as it applies to claims of pay discrimination by faculty in higher education. Elements of the cause of action, the four statutory defenses, and the need for a proper comparator of the opposite sex are discussed, as well as the use of statistical evidence, the statute of limitations and continuing violations, whether the Equal Pay Act abrogates the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states, and the results of several universities’ internal gender equity pay studies. It has been more than forty years since the passage of the Equal Pay Act, which was designed to eliminate pay discrimination based on sex by requiring equal pay for equal work [1]. Although women’s pay has increased since 1963, women still find that they earn on average only 78 percent of what men earn annually in the United States [2]. Faculty women in higher education similarly earn about 80 percent of what male faculty earn [3, p. 29]. There are two reasons for the overall lower salaries for faculty women compared to faculty men. One is that women are more likely to be employed at the lower paid rank of nontenure track lecturer or in unranked positions. The second is that women are more likely to be employed at associate and baccalaureate colleges where salaries are lower than at institutions that confer graduate degrees [3]. Not only do faculty women earn less on average than faculty men in higher education, but also in specific instances, faculty women have found that they are paid less than comparable male faculty of the same rank in their same institutions. In these situations, the Equal Pay Act may be violated. To understand whether an Equal Pay Act violation may have occurred, this article discusses the elements of","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126202268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.2190/HF7F-AMFU-YM1X-JXTX
Fred Maidment
{"title":"GLOBALIZATION AND THE AMERICAN LABOR FORCE","authors":"Fred Maidment","doi":"10.2190/HF7F-AMFU-YM1X-JXTX","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/HF7F-AMFU-YM1X-JXTX","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129205946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.2190/PFDL-BVJ1-0N2B-TU0Y
J. Owens, J. F. Morgan, G. Gomes
For more than two decades a debate has raged over whether nonunionized employees are entitled to a witness in investigatory interviews that could lead to disciplinary actions. Such a right was determined to exist for unionized employees in the 1975 landmark decision of National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc. Ever since, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has wrestled with the question of whether the so-called “Weingarten right” should be extended to all employees, whether unionized or not. After reviewing the important decisions that illustrate the NLRB’s incessant flip-flopping on the issue, we provide a summary of the NLRB’s latest (June 2004) rationale for denying this right to nonunion workers. To prevent the further and inevitable politicization of this issue if left to the whims of an ever-shifting NLRB majority, we suggest that Congress more fully enunciate the applicability of the Weingarten right to the nonunion workplace by amending the relevant section of the NLRA. The most important single piece of federal legislation in the area of labormanagement relations is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [1]. Under the NLRA, Congress created public policy that seeks to balance the rights, responsibilities, and bargaining power of employers and employees. Individuals tend to think about the NLRA in terms of a unionized workplace. What many
{"title":"\"NOW YOU HAVE IT, NOW YOU DON'T\": THE NLRB'S FICKLE AFFAIR WITH THE WEINGARTEN RIGHT AND THE NEED FOR CONGRESS TO END THE CONTROVERSY","authors":"J. Owens, J. F. Morgan, G. Gomes","doi":"10.2190/PFDL-BVJ1-0N2B-TU0Y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/PFDL-BVJ1-0N2B-TU0Y","url":null,"abstract":"For more than two decades a debate has raged over whether nonunionized employees are entitled to a witness in investigatory interviews that could lead to disciplinary actions. Such a right was determined to exist for unionized employees in the 1975 landmark decision of National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc. Ever since, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has wrestled with the question of whether the so-called “Weingarten right” should be extended to all employees, whether unionized or not. After reviewing the important decisions that illustrate the NLRB’s incessant flip-flopping on the issue, we provide a summary of the NLRB’s latest (June 2004) rationale for denying this right to nonunion workers. To prevent the further and inevitable politicization of this issue if left to the whims of an ever-shifting NLRB majority, we suggest that Congress more fully enunciate the applicability of the Weingarten right to the nonunion workplace by amending the relevant section of the NLRA. The most important single piece of federal legislation in the area of labormanagement relations is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [1]. Under the NLRA, Congress created public policy that seeks to balance the rights, responsibilities, and bargaining power of employers and employees. Individuals tend to think about the NLRA in terms of a unionized workplace. What many","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122861560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.2190/QPWP-VYVW-1AJE-CJ1U
J. Owens, J. F. Morgan, G. Gomes
Recent amendments to the Equal Treatment Directive prohibit sexual harassment as an illegal form of discrimination throughout the European Union. In implementing the directive by the October 2005 deadline, policymakers in each member state are to seek an equitable balance between the rights and duties of both employers and employees. Toward that end, member states need to: 1) determine the appropriate standard of employer liability for sexual harassment, and 2) decide what, if any, defenses are available to employers. This article discusses these developments and potential employer defenses.
{"title":"IMPLEMENTING THE E.U.'S NEW SEXUAL HARASSMENT DIRECTIVE: ARE EMPLOYERS ENTITLED TO A DEFENSE?","authors":"J. Owens, J. F. Morgan, G. Gomes","doi":"10.2190/QPWP-VYVW-1AJE-CJ1U","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/QPWP-VYVW-1AJE-CJ1U","url":null,"abstract":"Recent amendments to the Equal Treatment Directive prohibit sexual harassment as an illegal form of discrimination throughout the European Union. In implementing the directive by the October 2005 deadline, policymakers in each member state are to seek an equitable balance between the rights and duties of both employers and employees. Toward that end, member states need to: 1) determine the appropriate standard of employer liability for sexual harassment, and 2) decide what, if any, defenses are available to employers. This article discusses these developments and potential employer defenses.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"5 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126988778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.2190/LPDR-6FVY-CMHA-GT83
H. Findley, E. Stevens, Earl E. Ingram
{"title":"WHEN IS SOMEONE \"REGARDED AS DISABLED\"?","authors":"H. Findley, E. Stevens, Earl E. Ingram","doi":"10.2190/LPDR-6FVY-CMHA-GT83","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/LPDR-6FVY-CMHA-GT83","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123167358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：