{"title":"《第七章修正法案》:提案","authors":"Alex Reed","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Given the narrow framing of the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Bostock v. Clayton County</i>, that employers cannot fire someone simply for being gay or transgender, numerous questions persist as to whether and to what extent LGBTQ Americans are protected against employment discrimination. Resolving these issues is likely to require years, if not decades, of litigation, leaving LGBTQ workers and their employers without meaningful guidance in the interim. This article contends that the most efficient means of clarifying these uncertainties is for Congress to enact a new employment statute known as the Title VII Amendments Act. As proposed, the Act would resolve each of <i>Bostock's</i> ambiguities in favor of affording greater protections to workers generally and LGBTQ persons specifically while avoiding the controversies that have derailed LGBTQ civil rights legislation in the past. Thus, the Title VII Amendments Act represents LGBTQ persons' best hope of attaining immediate, comprehensive employment protections and employers' best prospect of securing definitive, timely legal guidance post-<i>Bostock</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"59 2","pages":"339-392"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ablj.12208","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Title VII Amendments Act: A Proposal\",\"authors\":\"Alex Reed\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ablj.12208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Given the narrow framing of the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Bostock v. Clayton County</i>, that employers cannot fire someone simply for being gay or transgender, numerous questions persist as to whether and to what extent LGBTQ Americans are protected against employment discrimination. Resolving these issues is likely to require years, if not decades, of litigation, leaving LGBTQ workers and their employers without meaningful guidance in the interim. This article contends that the most efficient means of clarifying these uncertainties is for Congress to enact a new employment statute known as the Title VII Amendments Act. As proposed, the Act would resolve each of <i>Bostock's</i> ambiguities in favor of affording greater protections to workers generally and LGBTQ persons specifically while avoiding the controversies that have derailed LGBTQ civil rights legislation in the past. Thus, the Title VII Amendments Act represents LGBTQ persons' best hope of attaining immediate, comprehensive employment protections and employers' best prospect of securing definitive, timely legal guidance post-<i>Bostock</i>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"59 2\",\"pages\":\"339-392\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ablj.12208\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12208\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12208","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
鉴于最高法院在博斯托克诉克莱顿县(Bostock v. Clayton County)一案中判决的狭隘框架,即雇主不能仅仅因为是同性恋或变性人而解雇员工,关于LGBTQ美国人是否受到保护,以及在多大程度上受到保护,不受就业歧视的问题仍然存在。解决这些问题可能需要数年,甚至数十年的诉讼,在此期间,LGBTQ工人和他们的雇主得不到有意义的指导。本文认为,澄清这些不确定性的最有效方法是国会颁布一项新的就业法规,即《第七章修正案法》。正如提议的那样,该法案将解决Bostock提出的每一个模棱两可的问题,有利于为一般工人和LGBTQ人群提供更大的保护,同时避免过去导致LGBTQ民权立法偏离的争议。因此,《第七修正案》代表了LGBTQ群体获得即时、全面就业保护的最大希望,也代表了雇主在波斯托克事件后获得明确、及时法律指导的最佳前景。
Given the narrow framing of the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, that employers cannot fire someone simply for being gay or transgender, numerous questions persist as to whether and to what extent LGBTQ Americans are protected against employment discrimination. Resolving these issues is likely to require years, if not decades, of litigation, leaving LGBTQ workers and their employers without meaningful guidance in the interim. This article contends that the most efficient means of clarifying these uncertainties is for Congress to enact a new employment statute known as the Title VII Amendments Act. As proposed, the Act would resolve each of Bostock's ambiguities in favor of affording greater protections to workers generally and LGBTQ persons specifically while avoiding the controversies that have derailed LGBTQ civil rights legislation in the past. Thus, the Title VII Amendments Act represents LGBTQ persons' best hope of attaining immediate, comprehensive employment protections and employers' best prospect of securing definitive, timely legal guidance post-Bostock.
期刊介绍:
The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.