发展中的美国女性就业权平等保护
|
摘要
历史地看,美国女性就业权经历了从不被保护到被特别保护再到被平等保护的不同历史发展阶段,美国女性为寻求宪法和法律对其就业权的平等保护走过了艰难的历程。从美国殖民地时代一直到南北战争后的19世纪的下半叶,在“男女有别、男尊女卑”观念的主导下,女性的活动领域被限制在家庭,女性的第一要务被认为是家务而不是工作,美国女性的就业权不受法律的保护。在20世纪的上半叶,美国女性的就业权进入了法律调控的领域,立法对就业女性进行特别保护是这个时期女性就业权保护的主要特点,此时许多州都制定了规定女工最高工时、最低工资,禁止女性上夜班,限制女工职业领域等“保护性”立法。不过,这种只适用于女性、而不惠及男性的“保护性”立法实际上夸大了女性和男性身体能力上的差异,强调的是女性和男性社会功能的不同,是对女性的歧视而不是保护。自20世纪60年代开始,美国对女性就业权的保护进入平等保护时期。
从立法史上看,美国女性就业权的平等保护是从州开始的,早在20世纪初就有少数州开始制定禁止就业中性别歧视的法律,但在联邦层面,美国女性就业权平等保护法律制度的构建是从20世纪60年代开始的, 1963年的《同工同酬法》是美国历史上第一部由联邦制定的禁止就业领域性别歧视的民权立法。
在美国联邦法律体系中,女性就业权平等保护的法源可以划分为四个层次。第一层次是宪法及其宪法判例,第二层次是国会立法及其相关判例,第三层次是行政命令,第四层次是联邦规章。宪法第十四修正案和第五修正案虽然制定的时间比国会立法和总统行政命令要早,但是它们在平等保护女性权利方面发挥的作用却要晚于国会立法和总统行政命令,联邦最高法院直到1971年才在Reed v. Reed,404 U.S.71(1971)案中通过对宪法第十四修正案的解释使宪法成为女性就业权平等保护的重要渊源。联邦最高法院在Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)案中确立了对性别立法分类的中度审查标准。民权法第七章,11246号总统行政命令,平等就业机会委员会的《就业性别歧视指导意见》,劳动部、司法部、平等就业机会委员会、行政事务委员会联合发布的《统一雇员选择程序指导意见》等规范性法律文件明确规定了在就业领域禁止歧视的具体要求、歧视的法律责任和救济途径等内容。
美国女性就业权平等保护要解决的主要问题是女性的就业机会不平等。造成女性就业机会不平等的雇佣实践概括起来有两类:一类是基于对女性的刻板成见而故意歧视女性,直接拒绝雇佣女性的雇佣实践,其具体表现是根据性别对工作分类,拒绝雇佣已婚女性;另一类是表面上中立的雇佣政策比如身高体重要求、体能测试等对女性和男性产生完全不同的影响,从而限制了女性的就业机会,这是一种间接性别歧视。
雇佣中的直接性别歧视是1964年民权法第七章所明令禁止的,美国采取了各种具体的法律措施来消除雇佣中对女性的直接歧视。不仅如此,通过司法判例形成的有关差别对待的判断标准和举证规则也在就业性别歧视案中得到充分的运用,是识别和消除雇佣中直接性别歧视的重要法律方法。差别对待歧视的判断标准及其举证规则是在1973年联邦最高法院审理的McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green案中形成的。根据该案,差别对待歧视的构成要件是:1、原告属于法律保护的类型;2、原告申请雇主提供的工作,且具有符合这个工作的资格,但被拒绝录用;3、雇主有歧视的故意。差别对待歧视的举证责任由原告和雇主分担。原告要证明雇主的雇佣行为符合差别对待歧视的构成要件构成歧视,雇主要提出合法的、非歧视理由进行抗辩,合法的、非歧视理由可以是:1、明确的、合法的、与种族、信仰、性别、来源国无关的拒绝雇佣的理由;2、真实职业资格。
间接性别歧视通过法院的解释也成为美国法律所禁止的雇佣实践,而通过司法判例形成的差别影响的判断标准及其举证规则是识别和消除雇佣中的间接性别歧视的重要法律方法。差别影响歧视的判断标准及其举证规则是在1971年联邦最高法院审理的Griggs v. Duke Power Co.案中提出的,后几经反复,最终在1991年民权法中得以确立。根据Griggs案和1991年民权法的规定,差别影响歧
视的构成要件是:1、一个具体的雇佣政策,尽管表面上看起来是中立的,但无论是其效果还是运作都对被保护群体中的成员产生了不成比例的消极影响;2、原告属于法律保护的类型,且自己受到这个政策直接的不利影响。故意不是差别影响歧视的构成要件。雇主进行抗辩的合法理由是事业必要性。禁止差别对待和禁止差别影响构成了1964年民权法确立的不歧视原则的两大内容,它们贯彻到了从雇佣前的招聘广告到聘用的具体环节直至最后的雇佣结果的评价这整个过程。
女性就业权的平等保护还要处理好女性的特殊生理现象对女性就业造成的不利影响,怀孕是其中最主要的问题。在美国,怀孕给就业女性所带来的特殊问题主要有两个,一个是怀孕女性被视为无劳动能力者被歧视,一个是胎儿保护与女性就业权的冲突。对这两个问题的解决,美国法律都坚持了不歧视原则,既明确禁止怀孕歧视,也否定了胎儿保护政策。美国法律并没有将怀孕和胎儿保护作为女性的特殊问题来对待,对于女性经期、孕期、产期、哺乳期女性、胎儿、婴儿的健康问题,美国法律将其留给女性自己处理,各州有关怀孕女性的产假、保障女性产后复职等制度是美国法律可以接受的非常有限的对就业女性的优待,这表明实现女性就业机会平等是美国女性就业权平等保护的宗旨。
如何提高女性群体就业水平也是美国在保障女性就业权时想要解决的问题。长期积累的女性在就业领域的结构性不平等在相当长的时期内是很难通过旨在实现就业机会平等的禁止歧视规则得到彻底纠正的,为提高女性整体的就业水平,美国实施了积极行动计划。在美国,对就业女性是否需要实施积极行动、积极行动可以采用什么方式等一直以来都存在很大的争议。出于对反向歧视的警惕和两性就业利益的平衡,美国政府在对女性采取积极行动计划时还是非常节制的,积极行动被控制在一定的限度内。
比较中美两国女性就业权平等保护的历程,美国一直走的是法制化的道路,而中国曾经在相当长的时期内依托的是政府推动的自上而下的男女平权运动和计划经济体制下“统包统配”的劳动用工制度,这种做法直到20世纪的80年代才开始有所改变。从效果看,历史证明美国的道路更加可靠。
比较中美两国现行的女性就业权平等保护法律制度,两国各有特点,美国法律侧重于对女性就业机会的保护,而中国法律侧重于对就业女性的特别保护。然而,在体现机会平等的法律规范体系尚未建立的情况下,仅仅立足女性与男性的差别对就业女性进行特别保护不过是父爱似的关心罢了,只会强化社会对女性的歧视,无助于女性就业权的平等保护。因此,美国女性就业权平等保护中实现女性就业机会平等的法律制度很值得我国借鉴。
Historically speaking, American female employment rights went through the different historical stages from the unprotected to special protection, then to equal protection. The American females underwent the hardships in order to seek the constitution and law to protect their equal employment rights. From the American colonial times to the second half of the 19th century after the civil war, under the guidance of the concept“males and females should be treated differently and males are superior to females”, the female activities were limited to the family and their most important thing were the housework instead of the job, the American female employment rights were not protected by law at all. In the first half of 20th century, the American female employment rights entered the field of legal regulation. The main characteristics of female employment rights protection during this time was the special protection of employment females by the legislation. At this time, there were“protection”legislations for women workers in many states such as the maximum working hours, the minimum wages, prohibiting the females from the night job and limiting the females working areas etc. However, in fact, such kind of“protection”legislations that were only applied to the females and not included the males exaggerated the difference between the females and the males in their bodies and emphasized the different social functions between the females and the males. These legislations were the discrimination against the females instead of protection. Since 1960s, female employment rights protection in America entered the period of equal protection.
Viewed from the legislation history, the equal protection of American female employment rights began from the states. As early as the beginning of the 20th century, a few states began to make the law that prohibiting the sexual discrimination in the employment, but in the federal level, the legislation on the American female equal employment rights began from the 1960s. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is the first federal civil legislation that prohibiting the sexual discrimination in employment in American history.
In American federal legal system, the legal sources of equal protection of female employment rights can be classified into four levels. The first level is the constitution and the precedents of constitution; the second level is the federal legislation and the related precedents; the third level is the executive order and the fourth level is the federal regulation. Although the Fourteenth and the Fifth Amendment of constitution is earlier than the federal regulation and the executive order of the president, their roles in the equal protection of female rights are later than the federal regulation and the executive order of the president. It is not until 1971 did the federal supreme court make the constitution to be the important source of the equal protection of female employment rights by interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment of constitution in Reed v. Reed,404 U.S.71(1971). The federal supreme court set up the heightened standard of gender legislation classification in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). The normative legal documents such as title VII of Civil Act, No 11246 of president’s executive order, the Guidelines On Discrimination Because Of Sex issued by the Equal Employment Committee, the Uniform Guidelines On Employee Selection Procedures (1978) jointly issued by Labor Department, Ministry of Justice, the Equal Employment Committee and Administrative Affairs Committee stipulate definitely the specific requirements of prohibiting discrimination in employment, the legal liabilities and remedies of the discrimination.
The major problem in the equal protection of American female employment rights is the female unequal employment opportunities. To sum up, there are two types of employment practices that cause the female unequal employment opportunities. One type of the employment practices is the refusal of hiring the female directly because of intentional discrimination against the females based on the female stereotype. The main manifestations of this type are the classification of the job according to the gender and refusing to employ the married females. Another type of employment practices is the indirect sexual discrimination. Such kind of employment policies are the neutral on the surface such as the height, weight and physical conditions. However, the policies have totally different effects upon the males and females which result in the limitation of female employment opportunities.
The direct sexual discrimination in employment is prohibited by title VII of the Civil Act (1964). America adopts many specific legal measures to eliminate the direct discrimination against the females in employment. Furthermore, the test standards and the rules of evidence related to the disparate treatment established through the precedents are fully applied in the cases of sexual discrimination in employment. These standards and rules are the important legal measures to identify and eliminate the direct sexual discrimination in employment. The test standards and the rules of evidence of disparate treatment discrimination were formed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green heard by the federal supreme court in 1973. According to this case, the requirements of the disparate treatment discrimination are: (1) that the plaintiff belongs to the type protected by law; (2) that the plaintiff applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking, but he was rejected; (3) that the employer has the intentional discrimination. The burden of proof of the disparate treatment discrimination shall be shared by the plaintiff and the employer. The plaintiff shall prove that the employment conducts of the employer meet the requirements of the disparate treatment discrimination and constitute the discrimination. The employer shall defend with legal and non-discrimination excuses. The legal and non-discrimination excuses maybe are: (1) definite, legal and refusal excuses unrelated to racial, belief, gender and country of origin. (2) bona fide occupational qualification.
The indirect sexual discrimination is also the prohibited employment practices in American law by the court’s interpretation. The test standards and the rule of evidence of disparate impact formed by the precedents are the important legal measures to distinguish and eliminate the indirect sexual discrimination in employment. The test standards and its rule of evidence of disparate impact discrimination were put forward in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. heard by the federal supreme court in 1971, then changed several times and finally were established in the 1991 Civil Act. According to the case of Griggs and the stipulations of 1991 Civil Act, the requirements of the disparate impact discrimination are: (1) Although one specific employment policy is neutral on the surface, no matter its effect and application cause the unproportionate negative effects upon the members of the protected groups; (2) the plaintiff belongs to the type protected by law, and he was affected directly by this policy. Intention is not the necessary requirements of the disparate impact discrimination. The defense of the employer is the business necessity.
Prohibiting the disparate treatment and prohibiting the disparate impact are the two main components of non-discrimination principle established in 1964 Civil Act. They are applied in the whole process from the employment advertisement before the employment to specific process of employment and the final evaluation of the employment results.
The equal protection of female employment rights shall deal with the negative effects upon the female employment caused by the female special physiological phenomenon. The pregnancy is one of major problems. In US, there are two main special problems for the employment female caused by the pregnancy: one is that the pregnant female is regarded as incapacitated person and is discriminated. Another is the conflict between the protection of the fetus and the female employment rights. In solving these two problems, American law persists in the principle of non-discrimination. It prohibits the pregnancy discrimination definitely and also overrules the policies of fetus protection. American law does not treat the pregnancy and fetus protection as the special female issues. As for the issues such as the female menstrual period, pregnancy, confinement and the health problems of female, fetus and infant during their lactation period, the American law reserves these issues to be dealt with by the females themselves. The regulations in every state related to the female maternity leave and the female resuming their posts after their postpartum are the limited acceptable preferential treatments to the employment females. This shows that the realization of equality in female employment opportunities is the purpose of the equal protection of American female employment rights.
How to promote the total female employment level is also the problem to be resolved in guaranteeing the female employment rights in America. The accumulated structured unequality in female employment is very difficult to correct thoroughly within a long duration by the regulations of prohibiting the discrimination which purposes are to realize the equality in employment opportunities. America carries out the affirmative action in order to promote the total female employment level. In US, there are very big disputes about whether the affirmative action should be carried out against the employment females and what kind of actions should be taken. Considering the alert against the reverse discrimination and the balances between the employment interests of two genders, the American government is very moderate when it carries out the affirmative actions against the females. The affirmative action is limited to the certain bounds.
Compared the process of equal protection of American female employment rights with those of China, America adopted the legal ways at all times while China depended on equal movement between men and women from up to bottom advanced by the government and the labor and employment systems of unified allocation under the plan economy systems for a certain long period. Not until 1980s did the changes take place. Viewed from the effects, the history proves that the way of America is more reliable. Compared the current legal systems of equal protection of female employment rights in America and China, both of them have their own features. The American legislation lays special emphasis on the female employment opportunities while China’s legislation lays special emphasis on the special protection of the employment females. Under the circumstance that the legal systems reflecting the equal opportunities have not yet set up, the special protection based on the difference between the males and the females is only like the“father love”concerns. Such kind of protection only strengthens the discrimination against the females and does not help the equal protection of the female employment rights. Therefore, the legal systems of realizing the female employment opportunities in equal protection of American female employment rights are worth using for references for China.
从立法史上看,美国女性就业权的平等保护是从州开始的,早在20世纪初就有少数州开始制定禁止就业中性别歧视的法律,但在联邦层面,美国女性就业权平等保护法律制度的构建是从20世纪60年代开始的, 1963年的《同工同酬法》是美国历史上第一部由联邦制定的禁止就业领域性别歧视的民权立法。
在美国联邦法律体系中,女性就业权平等保护的法源可以划分为四个层次。第一层次是宪法及其宪法判例,第二层次是国会立法及其相关判例,第三层次是行政命令,第四层次是联邦规章。宪法第十四修正案和第五修正案虽然制定的时间比国会立法和总统行政命令要早,但是它们在平等保护女性权利方面发挥的作用却要晚于国会立法和总统行政命令,联邦最高法院直到1971年才在Reed v. Reed,404 U.S.71(1971)案中通过对宪法第十四修正案的解释使宪法成为女性就业权平等保护的重要渊源。联邦最高法院在Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)案中确立了对性别立法分类的中度审查标准。民权法第七章,11246号总统行政命令,平等就业机会委员会的《就业性别歧视指导意见》,劳动部、司法部、平等就业机会委员会、行政事务委员会联合发布的《统一雇员选择程序指导意见》等规范性法律文件明确规定了在就业领域禁止歧视的具体要求、歧视的法律责任和救济途径等内容。
美国女性就业权平等保护要解决的主要问题是女性的就业机会不平等。造成女性就业机会不平等的雇佣实践概括起来有两类:一类是基于对女性的刻板成见而故意歧视女性,直接拒绝雇佣女性的雇佣实践,其具体表现是根据性别对工作分类,拒绝雇佣已婚女性;另一类是表面上中立的雇佣政策比如身高体重要求、体能测试等对女性和男性产生完全不同的影响,从而限制了女性的就业机会,这是一种间接性别歧视。
雇佣中的直接性别歧视是1964年民权法第七章所明令禁止的,美国采取了各种具体的法律措施来消除雇佣中对女性的直接歧视。不仅如此,通过司法判例形成的有关差别对待的判断标准和举证规则也在就业性别歧视案中得到充分的运用,是识别和消除雇佣中直接性别歧视的重要法律方法。差别对待歧视的判断标准及其举证规则是在1973年联邦最高法院审理的McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green案中形成的。根据该案,差别对待歧视的构成要件是:1、原告属于法律保护的类型;2、原告申请雇主提供的工作,且具有符合这个工作的资格,但被拒绝录用;3、雇主有歧视的故意。差别对待歧视的举证责任由原告和雇主分担。原告要证明雇主的雇佣行为符合差别对待歧视的构成要件构成歧视,雇主要提出合法的、非歧视理由进行抗辩,合法的、非歧视理由可以是:1、明确的、合法的、与种族、信仰、性别、来源国无关的拒绝雇佣的理由;2、真实职业资格。
间接性别歧视通过法院的解释也成为美国法律所禁止的雇佣实践,而通过司法判例形成的差别影响的判断标准及其举证规则是识别和消除雇佣中的间接性别歧视的重要法律方法。差别影响歧视的判断标准及其举证规则是在1971年联邦最高法院审理的Griggs v. Duke Power Co.案中提出的,后几经反复,最终在1991年民权法中得以确立。根据Griggs案和1991年民权法的规定,差别影响歧
视的构成要件是:1、一个具体的雇佣政策,尽管表面上看起来是中立的,但无论是其效果还是运作都对被保护群体中的成员产生了不成比例的消极影响;2、原告属于法律保护的类型,且自己受到这个政策直接的不利影响。故意不是差别影响歧视的构成要件。雇主进行抗辩的合法理由是事业必要性。禁止差别对待和禁止差别影响构成了1964年民权法确立的不歧视原则的两大内容,它们贯彻到了从雇佣前的招聘广告到聘用的具体环节直至最后的雇佣结果的评价这整个过程。
女性就业权的平等保护还要处理好女性的特殊生理现象对女性就业造成的不利影响,怀孕是其中最主要的问题。在美国,怀孕给就业女性所带来的特殊问题主要有两个,一个是怀孕女性被视为无劳动能力者被歧视,一个是胎儿保护与女性就业权的冲突。对这两个问题的解决,美国法律都坚持了不歧视原则,既明确禁止怀孕歧视,也否定了胎儿保护政策。美国法律并没有将怀孕和胎儿保护作为女性的特殊问题来对待,对于女性经期、孕期、产期、哺乳期女性、胎儿、婴儿的健康问题,美国法律将其留给女性自己处理,各州有关怀孕女性的产假、保障女性产后复职等制度是美国法律可以接受的非常有限的对就业女性的优待,这表明实现女性就业机会平等是美国女性就业权平等保护的宗旨。
如何提高女性群体就业水平也是美国在保障女性就业权时想要解决的问题。长期积累的女性在就业领域的结构性不平等在相当长的时期内是很难通过旨在实现就业机会平等的禁止歧视规则得到彻底纠正的,为提高女性整体的就业水平,美国实施了积极行动计划。在美国,对就业女性是否需要实施积极行动、积极行动可以采用什么方式等一直以来都存在很大的争议。出于对反向歧视的警惕和两性就业利益的平衡,美国政府在对女性采取积极行动计划时还是非常节制的,积极行动被控制在一定的限度内。
比较中美两国女性就业权平等保护的历程,美国一直走的是法制化的道路,而中国曾经在相当长的时期内依托的是政府推动的自上而下的男女平权运动和计划经济体制下“统包统配”的劳动用工制度,这种做法直到20世纪的80年代才开始有所改变。从效果看,历史证明美国的道路更加可靠。
比较中美两国现行的女性就业权平等保护法律制度,两国各有特点,美国法律侧重于对女性就业机会的保护,而中国法律侧重于对就业女性的特别保护。然而,在体现机会平等的法律规范体系尚未建立的情况下,仅仅立足女性与男性的差别对就业女性进行特别保护不过是父爱似的关心罢了,只会强化社会对女性的歧视,无助于女性就业权的平等保护。因此,美国女性就业权平等保护中实现女性就业机会平等的法律制度很值得我国借鉴。
Historically speaking, American female employment rights went through the different historical stages from the unprotected to special protection, then to equal protection. The American females underwent the hardships in order to seek the constitution and law to protect their equal employment rights. From the American colonial times to the second half of the 19th century after the civil war, under the guidance of the concept“males and females should be treated differently and males are superior to females”, the female activities were limited to the family and their most important thing were the housework instead of the job, the American female employment rights were not protected by law at all. In the first half of 20th century, the American female employment rights entered the field of legal regulation. The main characteristics of female employment rights protection during this time was the special protection of employment females by the legislation. At this time, there were“protection”legislations for women workers in many states such as the maximum working hours, the minimum wages, prohibiting the females from the night job and limiting the females working areas etc. However, in fact, such kind of“protection”legislations that were only applied to the females and not included the males exaggerated the difference between the females and the males in their bodies and emphasized the different social functions between the females and the males. These legislations were the discrimination against the females instead of protection. Since 1960s, female employment rights protection in America entered the period of equal protection.
Viewed from the legislation history, the equal protection of American female employment rights began from the states. As early as the beginning of the 20th century, a few states began to make the law that prohibiting the sexual discrimination in the employment, but in the federal level, the legislation on the American female equal employment rights began from the 1960s. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is the first federal civil legislation that prohibiting the sexual discrimination in employment in American history.
In American federal legal system, the legal sources of equal protection of female employment rights can be classified into four levels. The first level is the constitution and the precedents of constitution; the second level is the federal legislation and the related precedents; the third level is the executive order and the fourth level is the federal regulation. Although the Fourteenth and the Fifth Amendment of constitution is earlier than the federal regulation and the executive order of the president, their roles in the equal protection of female rights are later than the federal regulation and the executive order of the president. It is not until 1971 did the federal supreme court make the constitution to be the important source of the equal protection of female employment rights by interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment of constitution in Reed v. Reed,404 U.S.71(1971). The federal supreme court set up the heightened standard of gender legislation classification in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). The normative legal documents such as title VII of Civil Act, No 11246 of president’s executive order, the Guidelines On Discrimination Because Of Sex issued by the Equal Employment Committee, the Uniform Guidelines On Employee Selection Procedures (1978) jointly issued by Labor Department, Ministry of Justice, the Equal Employment Committee and Administrative Affairs Committee stipulate definitely the specific requirements of prohibiting discrimination in employment, the legal liabilities and remedies of the discrimination.
The major problem in the equal protection of American female employment rights is the female unequal employment opportunities. To sum up, there are two types of employment practices that cause the female unequal employment opportunities. One type of the employment practices is the refusal of hiring the female directly because of intentional discrimination against the females based on the female stereotype. The main manifestations of this type are the classification of the job according to the gender and refusing to employ the married females. Another type of employment practices is the indirect sexual discrimination. Such kind of employment policies are the neutral on the surface such as the height, weight and physical conditions. However, the policies have totally different effects upon the males and females which result in the limitation of female employment opportunities.
The direct sexual discrimination in employment is prohibited by title VII of the Civil Act (1964). America adopts many specific legal measures to eliminate the direct discrimination against the females in employment. Furthermore, the test standards and the rules of evidence related to the disparate treatment established through the precedents are fully applied in the cases of sexual discrimination in employment. These standards and rules are the important legal measures to identify and eliminate the direct sexual discrimination in employment. The test standards and the rules of evidence of disparate treatment discrimination were formed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green heard by the federal supreme court in 1973. According to this case, the requirements of the disparate treatment discrimination are: (1) that the plaintiff belongs to the type protected by law; (2) that the plaintiff applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking, but he was rejected; (3) that the employer has the intentional discrimination. The burden of proof of the disparate treatment discrimination shall be shared by the plaintiff and the employer. The plaintiff shall prove that the employment conducts of the employer meet the requirements of the disparate treatment discrimination and constitute the discrimination. The employer shall defend with legal and non-discrimination excuses. The legal and non-discrimination excuses maybe are: (1) definite, legal and refusal excuses unrelated to racial, belief, gender and country of origin. (2) bona fide occupational qualification.
The indirect sexual discrimination is also the prohibited employment practices in American law by the court’s interpretation. The test standards and the rule of evidence of disparate impact formed by the precedents are the important legal measures to distinguish and eliminate the indirect sexual discrimination in employment. The test standards and its rule of evidence of disparate impact discrimination were put forward in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. heard by the federal supreme court in 1971, then changed several times and finally were established in the 1991 Civil Act. According to the case of Griggs and the stipulations of 1991 Civil Act, the requirements of the disparate impact discrimination are: (1) Although one specific employment policy is neutral on the surface, no matter its effect and application cause the unproportionate negative effects upon the members of the protected groups; (2) the plaintiff belongs to the type protected by law, and he was affected directly by this policy. Intention is not the necessary requirements of the disparate impact discrimination. The defense of the employer is the business necessity.
Prohibiting the disparate treatment and prohibiting the disparate impact are the two main components of non-discrimination principle established in 1964 Civil Act. They are applied in the whole process from the employment advertisement before the employment to specific process of employment and the final evaluation of the employment results.
The equal protection of female employment rights shall deal with the negative effects upon the female employment caused by the female special physiological phenomenon. The pregnancy is one of major problems. In US, there are two main special problems for the employment female caused by the pregnancy: one is that the pregnant female is regarded as incapacitated person and is discriminated. Another is the conflict between the protection of the fetus and the female employment rights. In solving these two problems, American law persists in the principle of non-discrimination. It prohibits the pregnancy discrimination definitely and also overrules the policies of fetus protection. American law does not treat the pregnancy and fetus protection as the special female issues. As for the issues such as the female menstrual period, pregnancy, confinement and the health problems of female, fetus and infant during their lactation period, the American law reserves these issues to be dealt with by the females themselves. The regulations in every state related to the female maternity leave and the female resuming their posts after their postpartum are the limited acceptable preferential treatments to the employment females. This shows that the realization of equality in female employment opportunities is the purpose of the equal protection of American female employment rights.
How to promote the total female employment level is also the problem to be resolved in guaranteeing the female employment rights in America. The accumulated structured unequality in female employment is very difficult to correct thoroughly within a long duration by the regulations of prohibiting the discrimination which purposes are to realize the equality in employment opportunities. America carries out the affirmative action in order to promote the total female employment level. In US, there are very big disputes about whether the affirmative action should be carried out against the employment females and what kind of actions should be taken. Considering the alert against the reverse discrimination and the balances between the employment interests of two genders, the American government is very moderate when it carries out the affirmative actions against the females. The affirmative action is limited to the certain bounds.
Compared the process of equal protection of American female employment rights with those of China, America adopted the legal ways at all times while China depended on equal movement between men and women from up to bottom advanced by the government and the labor and employment systems of unified allocation under the plan economy systems for a certain long period. Not until 1980s did the changes take place. Viewed from the effects, the history proves that the way of America is more reliable. Compared the current legal systems of equal protection of female employment rights in America and China, both of them have their own features. The American legislation lays special emphasis on the female employment opportunities while China’s legislation lays special emphasis on the special protection of the employment females. Under the circumstance that the legal systems reflecting the equal opportunities have not yet set up, the special protection based on the difference between the males and the females is only like the“father love”concerns. Such kind of protection only strengthens the discrimination against the females and does not help the equal protection of the female employment rights. Therefore, the legal systems of realizing the female employment opportunities in equal protection of American female employment rights are worth using for references for China.
引文
1 [荷]亨利·范·马尔赛文、格尔·范·德·唐著:《成文宪法的比较研究》,陈云生译,华夏出版社1987版,第146页。
6加拿大宪法原文文本见Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, Thomson Canada Limited, 2003, pp.1205-1242.
1古巴、日本、韩国宪法中文文本见姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版。1《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷,人民出版社1995年版,第162页。
2全国人大常委会法制工作委员会行政法室编著:《就业促进法(草案)参考》,中国民主法制出版社2007年版,第40页。
1美国宪法原文见Norman Redlich, John Attanasio, Joel K. Goldstein, Understanding Contiutional Law, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., 2005, pp751-762.
1国家统计局人口和就业统计司、劳动和社会保障部规划财务司编:《2005中国劳动统计年鉴》,中国统计出版社2005年版。参见谭琳主编:《中国性别平等与妇女发展报告1995-2005》,社会科学文献出版社2006年版,第35-37页。
2参见王美艳:《中国失业妇女状况》,载谭琳主编《2006-2007年:中国性别平等与妇女发展报告》,社会科学文献出版社2008年版,第85页。
3周伟:《中国城镇就业中的性别歧视研究——以1995年至2005年上海和成都市30万份报刊招聘广告条件为例》,《政治与法律》2008年第4期。
4参见蔡定剑主编:《中国就业歧视现状及反歧视对策》,社会科学出版社2007年版,第27、50页。
1张艳:《女大学生就业问题的调查报告》,《西南政法大学学报》2007年第2期。
2参见麦克思中国大学生就业研究课题组编著:《2009年中国大学生就业报告》,社会科学文献出版社2009年版,第175-184页。
1参见[澳]维拉曼特著,张智仁、周伟文译:《法律导引》,上海人民出版社2003年版,第220-222页。
2《马克思恩格斯选集》第3卷,人民出版社1995年版,第305页。
2童之伟、殷啸虎主编:《宪法学》,上海人民出版社、北京大学出版社2009年版,第166页。
1参见张文显主编:《法理学》(第三版),高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2007年版,第323页。
1 [美]德沃金著,冯克利译:《至上的美德——平等的理论与实践》,江苏人民出版社2003年版,导论第1页。
2马岭:《法律上的平等是机会平等而不是结果平等》,《民主与科学》2008年第2期。
3齐延平著:《社会弱势群体的权利保护》,山东人民出版社2006年版,第2页。
1 [英]A.J.M.米尔恩著,夏勇、张志铭译:《人的权利与人的多样性》,中国大百科学术出版社1995年版,第60页。
1谭兢常、信春鹰主编:《英汉妇女与法律词汇释义》,中国对外翻译出版公司1995年版,第145页。
2佟新著:《社会性别研究导论——两性不平等的社会机制分析》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第25页。
1参见赵津芳、岳素兰主编:《男女平等基本国策简明读本》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第12-13页。
2赵津芳、岳素兰主编:《男女平等基本国策简明读本》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第12-13页。
1姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版,第1614页。
2 The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States, Introduction copyright c 1998 by Pauline Maier, A Bantam Classic Book / July 1998, p.53.
3 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.2. [美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第122页。
1 [美]茱迪·史珂拉著:《美国公民权:寻求接纳》,刘满贵译,世纪出版集团上海人民出版社2006年版,第42页。
1 Elizabeth Gaspar Brown, British Statutes in American Law, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School, 1964, p.11.
2 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England,转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory, Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, pp.17-18.
1参见[美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第16-18页。
2 William Bradford和Isaac Allerton的信函,American History Story Review,第8集( 1903年),第294一301页。转引自[美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第33页。
1参见[美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第61-62页。
2 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第63页。
1 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第95页。
2转引自[美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第104页。
3杨庚:《论人权的本质》,载冯卓然、谷春德主编:《人权论集》,首都师范大学出版社1992年版,第118页。转引自徐显明主编:《人权研究》(第一卷)2001年版,第13页。
4 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第103页。
1 Herma Hill Kay & Martha S. West, Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition), West Group, 2002, p.10.
2曲相霏:《人权主体论》,载徐显明主编《人权研究》(第一卷)2001年版,第14页。
3 The book of Abigail and John: selected letters of the Adams family, 1762-1784, edited and with an introduction by L. H. Butterfield, Marc Friedlaender, and Mary-Jo Kline, Harvard University Press, 1975, p.121.
4 The book of Abigail and John: selected letters of the Adams family, 1762-1784, edited and with an introduction by L. H. Butterfield, Marc Friedlaender, and Mary-Jo Kline, Harvard University Press, 1975, p.123.
5 Charles Adams, ed., The words of John Adams (Boston:1856, vol. 9, pp375-378.)转引自Marlene Stein Wortman, Women in American Law, Volume 1, From Colonial Times to the New Deal, Holmes & Meier Publishes, N.Y., 1985, p.76.
1 Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory,Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, p.14.
2参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory, Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, p.17.
3 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.72-73.
4 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.73.
5 Marlene Stein Wortman, Women in American Law, Volume 1, From Colonial Times to the New Deal, Holmes &Meier Publishes, N.Y., 1985, p.118.
1 Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque , 1969, p.40.
2 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.77.
3 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.74.
4 Elizabeth F. Defeis and ]oan Hoff Wilson, Experiment in Equality: The Woman’s Vote, a video presentation in color, Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, N.J. 07101.转引自Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.74.
5参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory, Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, p.15.
1 Act of Feb.22, 1797,ch.89,§11, N.J.21ST Gen. Assembly (1797),转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory,Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, p.15.
2 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第106页。
3 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第35-36页。
4王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第9页。
1 Nancy Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood, p.70.转引自王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第12页。
2 [美]萨拉·M·埃文斯著:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第69页。
3王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第12页。
4 Women’s America: Refocusing the past, ed. Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron DeHart, Oxford University Press, 1982, p.137.
5何黎萍:《近代美国妇女职业活动考察透视》,《通化师范学院学报》2003年第5期。
1 [美]卡罗尔·卡尔金斯主编:《美国社会史话》,王岱、程毓征译,人民出版社1984年版,第198页。
2 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第137页。
1 [美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第979页。
2参见Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.105.
3 In re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894)
4陆镜生:《美国人权政治——理论和实践的历史考察》,当代世界出版社1997年版,第271页。
1姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版,第1620页。
2姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版,第1620页。
3 United States v. Susan B. Anthony, 24 F. Cas, 829 (N. D. N. Y. 1873) (No. 14, 459)
4 83 U.S.162 (1875)
1 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译:,东方出版社1987年版,第269页,附录表II《在劳动大军中的妇女》。
2 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第320页。
3 [美]萨拉·M·埃文斯著:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第175页。
4 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第39页。
5 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第6页。
1 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第8-9页。
2 83 U.S. 130 (1873)
1 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
1 83 U.S. 130, at 141 (1872)
2 83 U.S. 130, at141 (1872)
3 83 U.S. 130, at 142 (1872)
4 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872),译文参见邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第60页。
1 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第347页。
2 Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U.S.252 (1957)
3 Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S.232(1957)
4 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第347页。
1 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第151页。
2 Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the work Force, 1920-1963, Greenwood Press, 1983. p.58.
3 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第478页。
4 [美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第140页。
5 Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the work Force, 1920-1963, Greenwood Press, 1983. p.58.
1 Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the work Force, 1920-1963, Greenwood Press, 1983, pp.58-59.
2 [美]萨拉·M·埃文斯:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第228页。
3 Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, Yale University Press, 1987, pp.209-210.转引自王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第112页。
4 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第189页。
5 [美]萨拉·M.埃文斯著:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第255页。
6 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第502页。
7 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第518页。
1 [美]萨拉·M.埃文斯著:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第259-261页。
2 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第215页。
1参见[美]洛伊斯·班纳:著《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第30页。
1 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, p.66.
2 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, p.131.
3参见Elizabeth M. Meehan, Women’s Rights at work: Campaigns and Policy in Britain and the United States, St. Martin’s Press, 1985, p.8.
4 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978, p.32.
5 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.41.
1 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978, p.31.
2 [美]凯斯·R·桑斯坦著:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第73页。
3 208 U.S. 412 (1908)
1 [美]凯斯·R·桑斯坦著:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第73页。
2 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978, p.72.
3 244 Ill. 509
1 189 N.Y.131.
2 214 N. Y. 395
3 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.115.
4 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.25.
5 Pauli Murray, The rights of Women, in The Rights of Americans 521,525(N. Dorsen ed. 1971) ,转引自Herma Hill Kay&Martha S. West,Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition) , West Group, 2002, p.15.
1 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第474页。
2 261U.S. 525 (1923)
3 261U.S. 525, at 553 (1923)
1 300 U.S. 379, at 391 (1937)
2 300 U.S. 379, at 393 (1937)
3 300 U.S. 379, at 394 (1937)
4 300 U.S. 379, at 398(1937)
1 300 U.S. 379, at 400 (1937)
2 335 U.S. 464 (1948)
1 335 U.S. 464, at 466 (1948)
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 415 Ill.564
5 127 N.J.574
6 202 Pa. Super. 389, 195 A.2d 828.
7 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978, p.121.
1 Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque , 1969, p.278, footnote15.
2 Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque, 1969, p.102.
1 United Statutes at Large, 92d Cong., 2d. Sess., 86 Stat. 1523 (1972)
1参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory,Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996.P178-180; Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process, Longman Inc., 1979, pp.2-3; [美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第974-975页。
2 Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process, Longman Inc., 1979, p.4.
3 Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process, Longman Inc., 1979, p.5.
4转引自[美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第269页。
1王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第337页。
3 Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 875(1970-1971).
4 Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 882 (1971).
5 Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 884 (1971).
1 Ibid.
2 Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971)
3 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S.677, at 688 (1973)
4 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, at 692 (1973)
5 Paul Freud, The Equal Rights Amendment Is Not the way, 6 Harv. C. R.-C.L. L. Rev. 234 (1971).
1 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.136-138.译文参照邱小平著《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第474页。
2 Paul Freud, The Equal Rights Amendment Is Not the way, 6 Harv. C. R.-C.L. L. Rev. 234 (1971).
3 [美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著,张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第976页,注释11。
4参见陆镜生:《美国人权政治——理论和实践的历史考察》,当代世界出版社1997年版,第347-348页。
1 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第366页。
2 153 Cong. Rec. S3845 (2007)
3 Martha F. Davis, Equal Rights Amendment: Then and Now, 17 Colum. J. Gender & L. 428(2008).
1 Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961)
2 Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S.57, at 61-62(1961)
1 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975)
2 Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S.71(1971)
1邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第478页。
2 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497(1954)
1 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
1 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
2 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, at 199 (1976)
1 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, at 210 (1976)
2 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 199, at 211 (1976)
1 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.129.
1 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第543页。
2 110 Cong. Rec. 2720 (l964)
3 110 Cong. Rec. 2577 (l964)
4 Jo. Freeman, How 'Sex' Got Into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy, this article is
1 [美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第239页。
2 Michael Evan. Gold, A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for the Issue of Comparable Worth. Faculty Publications—Collective Bargaining, Labor Law, and Labor History, Cornell, 1981, http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cbpubs
3 110 Cong. Rec. 2581 (l964)
4 110 Cong. Rec. 2578 (l964)
5 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, p.81.
1参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, pp.81-82.
1 417 U.S. 484 (1974)
2 429 U.S. 125 (1976)
1 [美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第235页。
2 3 C.F.R.§201 (1961)
1 President’s Commission on the Status of Women Report of the Committee on Private Employment 5 (1963).参见Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque, 1969, p.279, footnote20.
2参见[美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第235-237页。
3参见[美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第236-237页;[英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第367页。
4参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, p.102.
1参见Arthur Larson & Lex. K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination 1 Sex, Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter V, pp.5-9.
1 Bureau of Nat'l Affairs Survey, BNA Fair Empl. Prac. Manual, Summ. No. 80 (April 1967).转引自Arthur Larson & Lex. K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination 1 Sex, Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter V, p.10.
1 29 CFR§1604.1 (1965)
2 29 CFR§1604.1 (b) (1968)
1 29 CFR§1604.1 (1965)
2 29 CFR§1604.1 (b) (1968)
1 29 CFR§1604.2 (b) (1969)
1 Coon v. Tingle , 277 F.Supp.304(N.D.Ga.1967)
2 Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 284 F.Supp.950,956 (C.D.Cal.1968)
3 Ward v. Luttrell, 202 F.Supp.165 (E.D.La.1968)
4参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.269-270.
5 Rosenfeld V. Southern Pacific Company, 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971 )
1 D. Oregon: Richards v. Griffith Rubber Mills, 300 F. Supp. 338 (D. Ore. 1969)
2 McCrimmon V. Daley, 418 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1969)
3 Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company , 408 F.2d 228(5th Cir. 1969)
4 Caterpillar Tractor Co. V. Grabiec, 317 F. Supp. 1304 (D. Ill. 1970)
5 Garneau v. Raytheon Co., 323 F. Supp. 391 (D. Mass. 1971)
6 Ridinger v. General Motors Corp., 325 F. Supp. 1089 (D. Ohio 1971), rev’d on other grounds, 474 F.2d 949
7 Kober v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 325 F. Supp. 467 (W.O. Pa. 1971), affd. 480 F.2d 240 (3d Cir.1973)
8 Krauss v. Sacramento Inn, 314 F. Supp. 171 (0. CaI. 1970)
1 Sail’er Inn. v. Kirby, 5 CaI. 3d I, 95 CaI. Rptr. 329, 485 P. 2d 529 (1971)
2参见Arthur Larson & Lex. K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination Vol.1 Sex, Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter5, pp.2-3.
3参见Arthur Larson & Lex. K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination Vol.1, Sex, Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter V, pp5-7.
4参见Now Legal Defense and Education Fund and Dr. Renée Cherow-O’Leary, The State-By-State Guide to Women’s Legal Rights, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1987.
1 Ginder, Factors of Sex in Office Employment, 36 Office Executive (Feb. 1961), p. 11.转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross, Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.210.
2 Careers for Women as Technicians, Women's Bureau Bulletin 282 (Washington, D.C.: 1962), p. 3.转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.210.
3 Oppenheimer, The Female Labor Force in the United States: Demographic and Economic Factors Governing Its Growth and Changing Composition 109-114, 104-105 (1970).转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.208.
1 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc.2004, p.131.
2 Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic Hisory of American Women,载Editor Paul Burstein, Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, 1994, p24.
3 Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971)
1 Inda v. United Air Lines, Inc., 565 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1977)
2 EEOC Dec. No. 71-2613, C.C.H. EEOC Dec. (1973) 11 6285 (June 22, 1971), 4 F.E.P. 22
3 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Women's Bureau, Background Facts on Women Workers in the United States 1 (1970),转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.208.
1 Edmund S. Phelps, The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism, 62 American Economic Review659-671(1972).
2 29 C.F.R.§1604.2(a)
3 29 C.F.R.§1604.3(a)
4 41 C.F.R.§6O-20.5(b) (1970)
1 E.E.D.C. Dec. No. 71-796, C.C.H. Empl. Prac. Guide ? 6189 (1970)
2 E.E.D.C. Dec. No. 71-2338, C.C.H. Empl. Prac. Guide ? 6247 (1970)
3 Thompson v. Boyle, 21 F.E.P. 57 (D. D.C. 1979)
4 Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp. 763 (D. D.C. 1973)
5 Carter v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 777 (D. Tex. 1979)
6参见Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 6, p.3-5.
1 29 C.F.R.§1604.5 (1972)
2 41CFR. 60-20.2 (b)
3 Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 6, p.11.
4 Armstrong v. Index Journal Co., 647 F.2d 441 (4th Cir. 1981)
1 110 Cong. Rec. 2728(1964),转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 3, p.9.
2 110 Cong. Rec 13,825. See the quotation from the Court’s Opinion at N. 11 supra this subsection,which does precisely that.转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 3, p.9.
1 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 411 F.2d 1(5th Cir. 1969)
2 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 411 F.2d 1(5th Cir. 1969)
3参见Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 3, p.8.
4 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 416 F.2d 1257(5th Cir. 1969)
5 Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 781, 783 (E. D. La. 1967)
6 Stroud v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 544 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1977)
1 EEOC v. Delta Airlines,18 F.E.P. 35 (5th Cir. 1978)
2 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542, at 544 (1971)
1 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 400 U.S.542, at 545(1971)
2 Ibid.
3 Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971)
4 Inda v. United Air Lines, Inc., 565 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1977)
1 EEOC Guidelines,§1604.4 (a)
2 41 C.F.R.§6O-20-3(d) (1970)
3 Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980. , Chapter 3, p.15.
4 Coble v. Hot Springs School District, No.6,682 F2d 721,727 (8th Cir. 1982)
1 29 C.F.R.§1604.7
2 EEOC Dec. No. 72-0386 (Aug. 24, 1971), Empl. Prac. Guide 11 6295
3参见Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 6, pp.36-37.
1 29 C.F.R.§1604.2(a)(1970)
2 Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711,718 (7th Cir. 1969)
1 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969)
2 E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 70445 (Jan. 19, 1970), C.C.H. Empl. Prac. Guide ?6107. See also E.E.O.C. (Dec. No. 70-88, Case No. YCL9-094 (Aug. 19, 1969), C.C.H. EEOC Dec. ?6057 (1973)参见Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Charpter6, p.6.
3 303 F. Supp. 754 (M.D. Ala.1969)
4 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971 )
1 653 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1981)
2 Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711,718 (7th Cir. 1969)
3 Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969)
1 Cheatwood v. South Central Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 303 F. Supp. 754 (M.D. Ala.1969)
2 Rosenfeld V. Southern Pacific Company, 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971 )
3 442 F.2d 385, 389 (5th Cir. 1971)
1 Fernandez v. Wynn Oil Co. 653 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1981)
2 Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 4, p.3.
3 29 C.F.R.§1604.2(a) (1970)
4 Healey v. Southwood Psychiatric Hospital, 78 F.3d 128(3d Cir. 1996)
1 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), Footnote 6.
1 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 335 (1977)
1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 802 (1973)
2 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 802 (1973), Footnote 13.
3 Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 577 (1978)
4 Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir.1992)
1 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 250-251(1981)
2 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254(1981)
3 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253(1981)
1 Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003, 1014 (1st Cir.1979),转引自Bell v. Birmingham Linen Service, 715 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir.1984)
2 Armstrong v. Index Journal Co., 647 F.2d 441 (4th Cir. 1981)
3 EEOC V. Yenkin-Majestic Paint Corp. 112 F. 3d 831(6th Cir., 1997)
1 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, at 258 (1981)
2 Ibid.
3 Furnco Construction Corp. V. Waters,438 U.S. 577-578(1978)
4 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, at 260 (1981)
1 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, at 253(1981)
2 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 804 (1973)
3 Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs V. Burdine, 450 U.S.248, 256 (1980)
4 Bell v. Birmingham Linen Service, 715 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir.1984)
1 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
2 Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978)
3 Heim v. Utah, 8 F. 3d 1541( 10th .1993)
4 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
1 Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F. 3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996)
2 Patterson v. Mclean Credit Union, 491 U.S.164, 187 (1989)
3 La Montagne, 750 F.2d at 1414-15,引自Kier v. Commercial Union Ins. Cos., 808 F.2d 1254, 1259 (7th Cir. 1987)
1 EEOC V. Yenkin-Majestic Paint Corp. 112 F. 3d 831(6th Cir., 1997)
2 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 258 (1981)
1 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
1 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
1 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 429-430 (1971)
3 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 431(1971)
4 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 432 (1971)
1 29 C.F.R 1607.3A
2 Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982)
3 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 431 (1971)
4 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 432 (1971)
1 Ward's Cove Packing v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642
1 Ward's Cove Packing v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642, at 659-661 (1989)
2 Wards Cove Packing Co., Ine. V. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, at 661 (1989)
3 Wards Cove Packing Co., Ine. V. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, at 663 (1989)
4 Herma Hill Kay&Martha S. West, Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition),West Group, 2002, p.558.
5 Civil Rights Act of 1991, SEC. 2. (2). , SEC. 3. (2), SEC. 3. (3).
1 29 C.F.R.§1607.4D
2参见Robert Belton, Dianne Avery, Maria L. Ontiveros, Roberto L. Corrada, Employment Discrinination Law: Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace, Seventh Edition, the Labor Law Group, 2004, pp.227-228.
3 29 C.F.R.§1607.4D
1 M. Ali Raza, A. Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr., The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action Preferences, Praeger Publishers, 1999, p.21.
2 Firefighters Inst. For Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 616 F.2d 350, 356-57 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S.938, 101 S. Ct. 3079,69 L.Ed.2d 951(1981),参见Robert Belton, Dianne Avery, Maria L. Ontiveros, Roberto L. Corrada, Employment Discrimination Law: Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace, Seventh Edition, the Labor Law Group, 2004, p.228.
3 29 C.F.R.§1607.5
4 Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 181 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1999)
1 6 A.D.2d 364, 320 N.Y.S.2d 788 (1971), affd, 29 N.Y.2d 921, 329 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1972)
2 7 F.E.P. 1001 (Cat. App. 1974)
3 38 A.D.2d 25 416,326 N.Y.S.2d 640 (1971)
1 471 F. Supp. 670 (D. Md. 1979)
2 62 F.R.D. 98 (D. Ky. 1973), modified and affd. 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir. 1975)
3 586 S.W. 2d 270 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979)
4 411 F. Supp. 218 (N.D. Ill. 1976)
5 520 F.2d 492 (6th Cir. 1975), cerro denied. 426 U.S. 341
6 395 F. Supp. 378 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
7 21 Cal. 3d 1.145 Cal. Rptr. 176, 576 P.2d 1342 (1978)
8 39. 619 F.2d 611, cert. denied 449 U.S. 872 (1980) ,Toledo, Ohio
1 536 F.Supp. 177(E.D.N.Y.1982), affirmed 705 F.2d 584(2d Cir.1983)
2 906 F.2d 209 (6th Cir.1990)
1 181 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1999)
2 Zamlen v. City of Cleveland 906 F.2d 209 (6thCir, 1990)
1 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, at 330 (1977)
2 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, at 332 (1977)
3 Boyd v. Ozark Air Lines, 568 F.2d 50 (8th Cir. 1977)
1 395 F. Supp. 378 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
2 536 F.Supp. 177(E.D.N.Y.1982), affirmed 705 F.2d 584(2d Cir.1983)
3 39. 619 F.2d 611, cert. denied 449 U.S. 872 (1980)
1 Berkmam v. City of New York, 536 F.Supp. 177(E.D.N.Y.1982), affirmed 705 F.2d 584(2d Cir.1983).
2 Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 181 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1999).
1 Berkman v. City of New York, 812 F.2d 52 (2d Cir.1987)
2 Zamlen v. City of Cleveland 906 F.2d 209 (6th Cir.1990)
1 Robert Belton, Dianne Avery, Maria L. Ontiveros, Roberto L. Corrada, Employment Discrinination Law: Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace, Seventh Edition, the Labor Law Group, 2004.
1参见Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 929-930 (1971).
2 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
1参见Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 929-930 (1971)
2 Turner v. Department of Emplt. Security, 423 U.S. 44 (1975)
1 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, at 640-641 (1974)
2 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, at 643-646 (1974)
1 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, at 647 (1974)
2 Turner v. Department of Emplt. Security, 423 U.S. 44 (1975)
1 Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, at 494 (1974)
1 Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, at 496-497 (1974).
1 Equal Opportunity Commission as amicus curiae v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 511 F.2d 199(1975)
2 General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976)
3 Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, at 501 (1974)
1 Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.38.
1 29 C.F.R.§1604.10
1参见Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.74-75,Table 7.3.
2 Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.76.
3参见Lisa A. Rodensky, California Federal Savings & Loan Association V. Guerra: Preferential Treatment and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 10 Harv. Women’s L. J. 234, 1987.
1 California Fed. S & L v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 288-291 (1987)
1 Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)
1参见Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.82-84.
1 Doerr v. B.F. Goodrich Co. 22 F.E.P. 345 (N.D. Ohio 1979)转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 4, p.14.
2 Wright v. Olin Corp., 697 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1982)
1 Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital, 726 F.2d 1543 (CA11 1984)
2 Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)
1 Doerr v. B.F. Goodrich Co. 22 F.E.P. 345 (N.D. Ohio 1979)转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 4, pp.14-15.
1 Wright v. Olin Corp., 697 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1982)
2 Wright v. Olin Corp., 697 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1982)
1 Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital, 726 F.2d 1543 (CA11 1984)
2 Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital, 726 F.2d 1543 (CA11 1984)
1 Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)
1 Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)
2 Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S.187, at 208-211 (1991)
1转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 4, pp.15-16.
2 Vibiana M. Andrade, The Toxic Workplace: Title VII Protection For The Potentially Pregnant Person, 4 Harv. Women’s L. J. 71,103 (1981).
3 Ibid.
4 Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.39.
1 Dorothy Jongeward, Dru Scott and Contributors, Affirmative Action For Women: A Practical Guide, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1973, p75.
1 443 U.S. 203(1979)
2 Anne Peters, Women, quotas and Constitutions: A comparative study of Affirmative Action For Women under American, German, EC and International Law, Kluwer Law International, 1999, p31.
1 567 F.2d 730 ( 7th Cir.1977)
2 Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’International Union v. EEOC et al. 478 U.S. 421(1986)
1 Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193 (1979)
1 Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193, at 203, 205-207 (1979)
2 Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193, at 208-209 (1979)
3 Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193, at 212 (1979)
1参见David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of Affirmative Action, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 42-50, 1988-1990.
2 567 F.2d 730 ( 7th Cir.1977)
3 438 U.S.265 (1978)
4 448 U.S.448(1980)
1 488 U.S.469(1989)
2 515 U.S.200 (1995)
3 467 U.S.561(1984)
1 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004, p.103.
2 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004, p.104.
3参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004, p.105.
4 M. Ali Raza, A.Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr., The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action Preferences, Praeger Publishers, 1999, p.14.
1 41CFR§60-2.1
1 41C.F.R§60.2.16 (e)
2 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004, p.126.
3 19 Ohio St.2d 35, 249 N.E.2d 907, 908, 910 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1004, 90 S.Ct. 554, 24 L.Ed.2d 495 (1970).参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc.2004, p.126.
1 442 F.2d 159 (3~(rd) Cir, 1971)
2 Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, p.50.
1参见David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of Affirmative Action, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 48, 1988-1990.
2参见David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of Affirmative Action, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 50,1988-1990.
3 29CFR1607.17
1参见Chart[2-5]“1970年女性在不同教育层次的比例”,Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross, Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.523.
2 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc.2004, p.131.
1参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc.2004. P131—132.;Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross, Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.525-528.
2参加Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.528.
3 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.529.
1 Bazell, Sex Discrimination: Campuses Face Contract Loss Over HEW Demands, 170 Science 834-835 (Nov. 20, 1970),参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.535-536.
2 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.532-533.
1 George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Edley, Jr., Affirmative Action Review Report to the President 8.1
2 41 C.F.R. Part 60-4.6(1978),参见Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002.P9.
3 George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Edley, Jr.,Affirmative Action Review Report to the President 10.2.1
4 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,商务印书馆2007年版,第372-373页。
5参见Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, pp.7-21.
6 Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, p.83.
7 682 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir, 1982)
1 David La Rivier v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., 682 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir, 1982)
2 480 U.S.616 (1987)
1 Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S.616, at 634-642 (1987)
1 Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S.616, at 646-647 (1987)
2 Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, p.54.
1参见J.Edward Kellough, Understanding Affirmative Action: politics, discrimination, and the search for justice, Georgetown University Press, 2006, Washington. D. C., p.54.
2 J.Edward Kellough, Understanding Affirmative Action: politics, discrimination, and the search for justice, Georgetown University Press, 2006, Washington. D. C., p.56.
3 J.Edward Kellough, Understanding Affirmative Action: politics, discrimination, and the search for justice, Georgetown University Press, 2006, Washington. D. C., p.57.
2参见M. Ali Raza, A.Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr., The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action Preferences, Praeger Publishers, 1999, pp.80-81.
3 515 U.S.200 (1995).在该案中,1989年联邦交通部中央高速公路局把科罗拉多州一段高速公路的建筑合同给予一家总承包商,该总承包商把高速公路的护栏合同分包出去。建筑总合同规定,如果总承包商雇佣的分包商是经确认的,由社会和经济上受损害的个人控制的小型企业,总承包商可获额外补偿。Gonzales公司因属于这样的企业而中标,而阿达让建筑公司虽投标最低却未能中标。本案涉及的《小型企业管理法》,该法宣布的政策是,由社会和经济上受损害的个人所有和控制的小型企业,应有最大的可行机会,参与履行任何联邦机构发包的合同。该法把“社会上受损害的个人”定义为,由于其属于某一团体成员,不顾其个人品质而遭受种族歧视侵害或文化偏见的人;“经济上受损害的个人”定义为,那些在社会上受损害的个人,其在自由企业制度下竞争的能力,和没有在社会上受损害的同一行业其他人相比,资金少,信贷机会少。该法确认的政府目标是,每一个财政年度,由社会和经济上受损害的个人所有和控制的小型企业参与所有总承包合同和分包合同金额的总数不应少于5%。该法要求,各联邦机构应负责制定本部门的落实目标。本案涉及的《联邦交通和分配资助法》要求联邦交通部制定拨款措施时应规定,至少10%的联邦资金必须用于由社会和经济上受损害的个人所有和控制的企业。根据该法规定,黑人、西班牙裔美国人、土著美国人、亚太裔美国人或妇女都可假定其在社会和经济上受到损害,有资格享受该法优待。译文参见邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第414-415。
1参见Anne Peters, Women, quotas and Constitutions: A comparative study of Affirmative Action For Women under American, German, EC and International Law, Kluwer Law International 1999, pp.39-40.
1 Address of 4 June 1965. United States, President(1963-1969: Johnson), Public Papers of the Presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson1965, Book2, 636, Item 301(1966). Anne Peters, Women, quotas and Constitutions: A comparative study of Affirmative Action For Women under American, German, EC and International Law, Kluwer Law International, 1999, p38.
2 Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, at 403, 405, 407 (1978)
1参见邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第363页。
2 Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, at 293、295、298 (1978)
3 Albert G. Mosley & Nicholas Capaldi, Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996, pp.73-76.
1 David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of Affirmative Action, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J.42,1988-1990.
2 Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, at 297(1978)
1 Herma Hill Kay&Martha S. West,Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition) , West Group, 2002, p.540.
3 Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, p.84.
1参见欧阳和霞:《回顾中国现代历史上“妇女回家”的四次争论》,《中国女子学院学报》2003年第3期。
1参见欧阳和霞:《回顾中国现代历史上“妇女回家”的四次争论》,《中国女子学院学报》2003年第3期。
1刘连泰:《平等与偏爱:女性退休年龄规定的合宪性分析》,《法商研究》2006年第5期。
1李傲著:《性别平等的法律保障》,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第23页。
1.郭夏娟著:《为正义而辩——女性主义与罗尔斯》,人民出版社2004年版。
2.林来梵著:《从宪法规范到规范宪法》,法律出版社2001年。
3.陆镜生著:《美国人权政治——理论和实践的历史考察》,当代世界出版社1997年版。
4.齐延平著:《社会弱势群体的权利保护》,山东人民出版社2006年版。
5.邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
6.薛宁兰著:《社会性别与妇女权利》,社会科学文献出版社2008年版。
7.佟新著:《社会性别研究导论——两性不平等的社会机制分析》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
8.童之伟著:《法权与宪政》,山东人民出版社2001年版。
9.王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版。
10.王立著:《平等的范式》,科学出版社2009年版。
11.王希著:《原则与妥协:美国宪法的精神与实践》,北京大学出版社2000年版。
12.夏勇著:《人权概念起源——权利的历史哲学》(修订版),中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
13.肖巧平著:《社会性别视野下的法律——女性与法律》,中国传媒大学出版社2006年版。
14.周安平著:《性别与法律》,法律出版社2007年版。
15.周伟著:《宪法基本权利司法救济研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
16.周伟等著:《中国的劳动就业歧视:法律与现实》,法律出版社2006年版。
17.周伟等著:《禁止就业歧视的法律制度与中国的现实》,法律出版社出版2008年版。
18.周仲秋著:《平等观念的历程》,海南出版社2002年版。
19.朱应平著:《论平等权的宪法保护》,北京大学出版社2004年版。
1.《马克思恩格斯选集》第三卷,人民出版社1995年版。
2.《马克思恩格斯选集》第四卷,人民出版社1995年版。
3.中国法学会研究部编:《马克思恩格斯论法》,法律出版社2010年版。
4.[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨著,王军等译:《美国法律史》,中国政法大学出版社1990年版。
5.[美]丹尼斯·劳埃德著,M.D.A.弗里曼修订,许章润译:《法理学》,法律出版社2007年版。
6.[美]德博拉. G.费尔德著,姚燕瑾、徐欣译:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,新星出版社2006年版。
7.[美]E.博登海默著,邓正来、姬敬武译:《法理学——法哲学及其方法》,华夏出版社1987年版。
8.[美]弗里丹著,程锡麟、朱徽、王晓路译:《女性的奥秘》,广东经济出版社2005年版。
9.[美]盖尔·柯林斯著,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,东方出版社2006年版。
10.[美] J .范伯格著,王守昌、戴栩译:《自由、权利和社会正义——现代社会哲学》,贵州人民出版社1998年版。
11.[美]杰罗姆·巴伦、托马斯·迪恩斯著:《美国宪法概论》,刘瑞祥等译,中国社会科学出版社1995年版。
12.[美]凯特·米利特著,宋文伟译:《性政治》,江苏人民出版社2000年版。
13.[美]凯瑟琳·A·麦金农著,曲广娣译:《迈向女性主义的国家理论》,中国政法大学版社2007年版
14.[美]凯斯·R·桑斯坦著:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
15.[美]罗伯特·诺齐克著,何怀宏等译:《无政府、国家与乌托邦》,中国社会科学出版社1991年版。
16.[美]罗纳德·德沃金著,冯克利译:《至上的美德——平等的理论与实践》,江苏人民出版社2003年版。
17.[美]洛伊斯·班纳著,侯文蕙译:《现代美国妇女》,东方出版社1987年版。
18.[美]萨拉·M·埃文斯著,杨俊峰译:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,辽宁人民出版社1995年版。
19.[美]斯密特、谢利、巴迪斯著:《美国政府与政治》,梅然译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
20.[美]彼得·伊龙斯著、上海市政协编译组译:《为权益而战》,上海译文出版社1997年版。
21.[美]约翰·罗尔斯著,何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译:《正义论》,中国社会科学出版社1988年版。
22.[美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著,张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
23.[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴著,李曦、蔡蓁译:《实践中的道德》(第六版),北京大学出版社2006年版。
24.[美]茱迪.史珂拉著,刘满贵译:《美国公民权:寻求接纳》,世纪出版集团上海人民出版社2006年版。
25.[澳]维拉曼特著,张智仁、周伟文译:《法律导引》,上海人民出版社2003年版。
26.[英]A.J.M.米尔恩著,夏勇、张志铭译:《人的权利与人的多样性》,中国大百科学术出版社1995年版。
27.[德]威尔福莱德.亨氏著,倪道钧译:《被证明的不平等——社会正义原则》,中国社会科学出版社2008年版。
28.[英]J.D.波尔著,张聚国译:《美国平等的历程》,商务印书馆2007年版。
29.[印度]阿玛蒂亚.森著,王利文、于占杰译:《论经济不平等/不平等之在考察》,社会科学文献出版社2006年版。
1.北京大学法学院司法研究中心编:《宪法的精神》,中国方正出版社2003年版。
2.蔡定剑主编:《中国就业歧视现状及反歧视对策》,社会科学出版社2007年版。
3.复旦大学人权研究中心编:《复旦人权研究》,复旦大学出版社2004年版。
4.韩大元主编:《宪法学》,高等教育出版社2007年版。
5.姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版。
6.李傲、罗英主编:《中国性别平等状况调查报告》,中国社会科学出版社2008年版。
7.李昌道编著:《美国宪法史稿》,法律出版社1986年版。
8.李薇薇主编:《禁止就业歧视:国际标准和国内实践》,法律出版社2006年版。
9.林晓云等编著:《美国劳动雇佣法》,法律出版社2007年版。
10.麦克思中国大学生就业研究课题组编著:《2009年中国大学生就业报告》,社会科学文献出版社2009年版。
11.全国人大常委会法制工作委员会行政法室编著:《就业促进法(草案)参考》,中国民主法制出版社2007年版。
12.谭琳、姜秀花主编:《社会性别平等与法律研究和对策》,社会科学文献出版社2007年版。
13.谭琳主编:《中国性别平等与妇女发展报告1995-2005》,社会科学文献出版社2006年版。
14.谭琳主编:《2006-2007年:中国性别平等与妇女发展报告》,社会科学文献出版社2008年版。
15.谭兢常、信春鹰主编:《英汉妇女与法律词汇释义》,中国对外翻译出版公司1995年版。
16.童之伟、殷啸虎主编:《宪法学》,上海人民出版社、北京大学出版社2009年版。
17.王政、杜芳琴主编:《社会性别研究选译》,生活·读书·新知三联书店1998年版。
18.徐显明主编:《人权研究》第一卷,山东人民出版社2001年版。
19.徐显明主编:《人权研究》第二卷,山东人民出版社2002年版。
20.张文显主编:《法理学》(第三版),高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2007年。
21.张千帆、蔡定剑主编:《海外反就业歧视制度与实践》,中国社会科学出版社2007年版。
22.赵津芳、岳素兰主编:《男女平等基本国策简明读本》,北京大学出版社2008年。
23.中国社会科学院法学院研究所资料室编:《论法律面前人人平等》,社会科学文献出版社2003年版。
24.[美]卡罗尔·卡尔金斯主编,邓明言等译:《美国文化教育史话》,人民出版社1984年版。
25.[美]卡罗尔·卡尔金斯主编,王岱、程毓征译:《美国社会史话》,人民出版社1984年版。
26.[日]藤仓皓一郎等主编:《英美判例百选》,段匡、杨永庄译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
1.许叶萍、石秀印:《在“社会”上贡献,于“市场”中受损——女性就业悖论及其破解》,《江苏社会科学》2009年第3期。
2.钟云萍:《妇女平等就业权的宪法维度——性别就业歧视普适性评价标准的切入》,《行政与法》2009年第8期。
3.徐钢:《论平等就业权在立法归类中的合理差别》,《浙江学刊》2009年第2期。
4.刘美玲:《平等与责任的三种范式及其理论困境》,《四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年第2期。
5.于晓琪:《女权主义方法论意义的中国化解读》,《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年第2期。
6.李云霖:《我国<就业促进法>第27条的宪法学思考》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年第1期。
7.李薇薇:《平等原则在反歧视法中的适用和发展》,《政法论坛》2009年第1期。
8.郑玉敏:《德沃金的社会弱势群体保护理论研究》,《辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)2008年第6期。
9.李雄:《论平等就业权的界定》,《河北法学》2008年第6期。
10.谢增毅:《英美两国就业歧视构成要件比较——简论反就业歧视法发展趋势及我国立法选择》,《中外法学》2008年第4期。
11.饶志静的《英国反就业歧视法律制度研究》,《环球法律评论》2008年第4期。
12.贾丹、肖卫国:《平等的“悖”与“不悖”》,《广西社会科学》2008年第11期。
13.马晓燕:《罗尔斯与马克思平等观的比较研究》,《南京社会科学》2008年第4期。
14.敖双红:《平等保护还是隐形歧视——以劳动法为例》,《法学评论》2008年第3期。
15.马岭:《法律上的平等是机会平等而不是结果平等》,《民主与科学》2008年第2期。
16.武中哲:《单位体制下男女平等就业的政治过程及其局限性》,《文史哲》2007年第6期。
17.高景柱:《民主平等观的困境及超越——罗尔斯与德沃金之争》,《南京社会科学》2007年第11期。
18.张千帆:《平等是一门科学——就业歧视法律控制的比较研究》,《北方法学》2007年第4期。
19.杨海坤:《弱势群体的宪法地位研究》,《法律科学》2007年第4期。
20.马晓燕:《对女性主义“平等”理念的考察和反思》,《妇女研究论丛》2007年第3期。
21.俞彦娟:《从美国平权修正案的争议看男女平权和母亲角色》,《浙江学刊》2007年第3期。
22.陈霞明:《论实质平等》,《江西社会科学》2007年第4期。
23.许卓:《试论美国平等权利修正案的曲折历程》,《长春大学学报》2007年第3期。
24.王蕾:《宪法平等权规定的“规范”分析——以语义学规范理论为视角》,《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2007年第1期。
25.余少祥:《弱势群体保护之法哲学论纲》,《法学评论》2006年第6期。
26.刘连泰:《平等与偏爱:女性退休年龄规定的合宪性分析》,《法商研究》2006年第5期。
27.汗水法:《平等的概念》,《文史哲》2006年第4期。
28.姜先福、彭中礼、王亮:《“肯定性行动计划”的法理学思考——以平等理论为视角》,《时代法学》2006年第6期。
29.何琼、裘谬:《论就业歧视的界定——欧盟“正当理由”理论对我国的歧视》,《法学》2006年第4期。
30.弗朗斯思科H.G.弗雷拉:《不平等的困境》,《江西社会科学》2006年第3期。
31.张星炜:《平等观念及其理论概览》,《科学社会主义》2005年第6期。
32.郭夏娟:《重新解读罗尔斯的正义原则——一种女性主义视角》,《哲学动态》2005年第11期。
33.刑益精:《论合理的差别待遇——宪法平等权的一个课题》,《政治与法律》2005年第4期。
34.刘小楠:《美国女权主义法学平等与差异观研究》,《法制与社会发展》2005年第3期。
35.徐友渔:《当代西方政治哲学中关于平等的讨论》,《云南大学学报》2005第2期。
36.〔芬〕凯塔琳娜·佛罗斯特尔:《实质平等和非歧视法》,《环球法律评论》2005年第1期。
37.武劲松:《美国两性工作平等制度研究》,《法学家》2004年第3期。
38.张洁:《从职工生育保险的发展浅析对妇女就业机会平等权的保障》,《中华女子学院学报》2004年S1期。
39.肖巧平:《中美宪法妇女问题比较研究》,《湖南省社会主义学院学报》2004年第2期。
40.凌新:《论权利的不平等——马克思主义平等正义观的基本原则》,《江汉论坛》2004年第9期。
41.易小明:《论平等生成的哲学基础》,《天津社会科学》2004年第3期。
42.李炳安:《欧盟与美国两性工作平等法制之比较》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第3期。
43.吴宁:《社会弱势群体保护的权利视角及其理论基础———以平等理论透视》,《法制与社会发展》2004年第3期。
44.李薇薇:《论国际人权法中的平等与不歧视》,《环球法律评论》2004年第2期。
45.闫国智:《.现代法律中的平等———平等的主体条件、法律平等的本体及价值》,《法学论坛》2003年第5期。
46.蔡红:《反就业性别歧视法中的“歧视”:从经济学视角》,《江西社会科学》2005年第8期。
47.何黎萍:《近代美国妇女职业活动考察透视》,《通化师范学院学报》2003年第5期。
48.欧阳和霞《回顾中国现代历史上“妇女回家”的四次争论》,《中国女子学院学报》2003年第3期。
49.张爱民:《美国“肯定性行动计划”述评》,《南开大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2000年第3期。
50.沈宗灵:《女权主义法学述评》,《中国法学》1995年第3期。
1.Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979.
2.Albert G. Mosley & Nicholas Capaldi, Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1996
3.Anne Peters, Women, quotas and Constitutions: A comparative study of Affirmative Action For Women under American, German, EC and International Law, Kluwer Law International 1999.
4.Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980.
5.Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975.
6.Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory,Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996.
7.Beverley Baines and Ruth Rubio-marin (Editor), The Gender of Constitutinal Jurisprudence, Cambridge University Press 2005.
8.Clair Brown and Joseph A. Pechman, Gender in the Workplace, the Brookings Institution, 1987.
9.Deborah L. Rhode, Justice and Gender: Sex Discrimination and the Law, First Harvard University Press Paperback edition, 1991.
10.Dorothy Jongeward, Dru Scott and Contributors, Affirmative Action For Women: A Practical Guide, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1973.
11.Elizabeth M. Meehan, Women’s Rights at work: Campaigns and Policy in Britain and the United States, St.Martin’s Press, 1985.
12.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Legislative history of titles VII and XI of Civil rights act of 1964,Washington D.C., 1968.
13.Gustavus A. Weber, The Women’s Bureau: Its History, Activiteis and Organization, Original d.Issued as No. 22 of Service monographs of the United States Governent, Reprinted from the edition of 1923, Baltimore First AMS edition published, 1974.
14.Herma Hill Kay&Martha S. West,Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition) , West Group (2002)
15.Paul Ong(Editor), Impacts of Affirmative Action: Policies & Consequences in California, AltaMira Press, A Division of Sage Publications, Inc., 1999.
16.Jane Campbell Moriary(Editor), Women and The Law, Thomson Reuters/West, 2008. Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process, Longman Inc. 1979.
17.J . Edward Kellough, Understanding Affirmative Action: politics, discrimination, and the search for justice, Georgetown University Press, 2006, Washington. D. C.
18.Joan Hoff, Law, Gender, and Injustice: A Legal History of U.S. Women, New York University, 1991.
19.Judith A. Baer, Women in American Law, The Struggle toward Equality from the New Deal to the Present, Homees & Meier Publishes, N.Y., 1996.
20.Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978.
21.Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the work Force, 1920-1963, Greenwood Press, 1983.
22.Jufiyh G. Greenberg, Martha L. Minow, Dorothy E. Roberts, Women and the Law, Foundation Press, New York, 2004.
22.Kathleen M.Sullivan & Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law ( Sixteenth Edition ), Foundation Press 2007.
23.Katharine T. Bartlett,Deborah L. Rhode, Gender and Law: theory, doctrine, commentary (4th ed.) , 2006 Aspen Publishers, Inc.
24.Kenneth Lawrence & Katharine A. Kols, Sex Discrimination in the Workplace, Aspen Systems Corporation, 1978.
25.Kermit L. Hall.(Editor), Women, The Law, and The Constitution: major historical interpretations collection of essays, Garland Publishing, Inc. New York 1987 .
26.Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque , 1969.
27.Louis Fisher & David Gray Adler, American Constitutional Law, volume I, Constitutional Structures, 7th Edition, Carolina Academic Press, 2007.
28.Marcia Canavan, Woman’s Law, William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 2000.
29.M. Ali Raza, A.Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr., The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action Preferences, Praeger Publishers, 1999.
30.Marion G. Crain, Pauline T. Kim, Michael Selmi.,Worklaw : cases and materials, LexisNexis, c2005
31.Marlene Stein Wortman, Women in American Law, Volume 1, From Colonial Times to the New Deal, Holmes & Meier Publishes, N.Y., 1985.
32.Michel Rosenfeld, Affirmative Action and Justice-A Philosophical and Constitutional Inquiry, Yale University Press, 1991.
33.Nancy E. Mcglen and Karen O’connor, The struggle for equality in the 19th & 20th centuries: Women’s Rights, Praeger Publishers, 1983.
34.Now Legal Defense and Education Fund and Dr. Renée Cherow-O’Leary, The State-By-State Guide to Women’s Leagal Rights, McGraw-Hill Book Company,1987.
35.Paul Burstein (Editor) , Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, 1994.
36.Richard Anker, Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the world, Geneva, International Labour Office, 1998.
37.Robert Belton, Dianne Avery, Maria L. Ontiveros, Roberto L. Corrada, Employment Discrinination Law: Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace, Seventh Edition, the Labor Law Group, 2004.
38.Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993.
39. Ronald J. Fiscus, The Constitutional Logic of Affirmative Action, Duke Unverisity Press, 1992.
40. Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002.
41.Scott E. Friedman, Sex Law: A Legal Sourcebook on Critical Sexual Issues for the Non-Lawyer, McFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, North Carolina, 1990.
42.Sibyl A. Schwarzenbach and Patricia Smith(Editor), Women and the United States Constitution: History, Interpretation, and Practice, Columbia University Press, 2003.
43.Susan D. Becker, The Origins of the Equal Rights Amendment: American Feminism Between the Wars, Greenwood Press, 1981.
44.Susan D. Clayton and Faye J. Crosby, Justice, Gender, and Affirmative Action, the University of Michigan Press, 1992.
45.Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004.
46.Thomas R. Haggard, Understanding Employment Discrimination, Second Edition, LexisNexis, Matthew Bender, 2008.
1.Arianne Renan Barzilay, Women at Work: Towards an inclusive Narrative of the Rise of the Regulatory State, 31 Harv. J.L. & Gender 169 (2008)
2.Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 871 (1971).
3.Catherine L. Fisk, Looking for a Miracle - Women, Work, and Effective Legal Change Women in the Workplace: Foreword , 13 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 1(2006)
4.David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of AffirmativeAction, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 42-50,1988-1990.
5.Edmund S. Phelps, The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism, 62 American Economic Review659(1972).
6.Eliot A. Landau and Kermit L. Dunabov, "Sex Discrimination in Employment: a Survey of State and Federal Remedies," 20 Drake Law Rev. 417(June 1971).
7.Herma Hill Kay, Equality and Difference: The Case of Pregnancy, 1 Berkeley Women's L.J.1 (1985)
8.Jennifer K. Brown, The nineteenth Amentment and Women’s equality, 102 Yale L.J 2175 (1993)
9.Joseph P. Kennedy, Sex Discrimination: State Protective Laws Since Title VII,
47 Notre Dame L.514 (1972)
10.Joel WM. Friedman, Gender Nonconformity and the Unfulfilled Promise of Price Waterhouse V. Hopkins, 14 Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 205 (2007)
11.Larry Alexander, What Makes Wrongful Discrimination Wrong? Blases, Preferences, Stereotypes, and Proxies, 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 149 (1992-1993)
12.Lisa A.Rodensky, California Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Guerra: Preferential Treatment and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Case Comments, 10 Harv. Women's L.J.225 (1987)
13.Martha F. Davis, Equal Rights Amendment: Then and Now, 17 Colum. J. Gender & L. 419 (2008).
14.Michael J. Zimmer & Charles A. Sullivan, Structure of Title VII Individual Disparate Treatment Litigation: Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, Inferences of Discrimination, and Burdens of Proof, 9 Harv. Women's L.J. 25 (1986)
15.Miller, Sex Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964,
51 MINN. L. REV. 877 (1967)
16.Paul Freud, The Equal Rights Amendment Is Not the way, 6 Harv. C. R.-C.L. L. Rev. 234 (1971).
17.Pauli Murray & Marry O. Eastwood, Jane Crow and the Law: Sex Discrimination and Title VII, 34 GEO. WASH. L. Rev. 232 (1965-1966).
18.Ryan James, Jane Zara, Equal Protection Fourth Annual Review of Gender and Sexuality Law: I: Constitutional Law Chapter 4 Geo. J. Gender & L.1 (2002-2003)
19.Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Equal Rights Amendment Is the Way, 1 Harv. Women's L.J.19 (1978)
20.Vibiana M. Andrade, Toxic Workplace: Title VII Protection for the Potentially Pregnant Person, 4 Harv. Women's L.J.71 (1981)
6加拿大宪法原文文本见Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, Thomson Canada Limited, 2003, pp.1205-1242.
1古巴、日本、韩国宪法中文文本见姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版。1《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷,人民出版社1995年版,第162页。
2全国人大常委会法制工作委员会行政法室编著:《就业促进法(草案)参考》,中国民主法制出版社2007年版,第40页。
1美国宪法原文见Norman Redlich, John Attanasio, Joel K. Goldstein, Understanding Contiutional Law, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., 2005, pp751-762.
1国家统计局人口和就业统计司、劳动和社会保障部规划财务司编:《2005中国劳动统计年鉴》,中国统计出版社2005年版。参见谭琳主编:《中国性别平等与妇女发展报告1995-2005》,社会科学文献出版社2006年版,第35-37页。
2参见王美艳:《中国失业妇女状况》,载谭琳主编《2006-2007年:中国性别平等与妇女发展报告》,社会科学文献出版社2008年版,第85页。
3周伟:《中国城镇就业中的性别歧视研究——以1995年至2005年上海和成都市30万份报刊招聘广告条件为例》,《政治与法律》2008年第4期。
4参见蔡定剑主编:《中国就业歧视现状及反歧视对策》,社会科学出版社2007年版,第27、50页。
1张艳:《女大学生就业问题的调查报告》,《西南政法大学学报》2007年第2期。
2参见麦克思中国大学生就业研究课题组编著:《2009年中国大学生就业报告》,社会科学文献出版社2009年版,第175-184页。
1参见[澳]维拉曼特著,张智仁、周伟文译:《法律导引》,上海人民出版社2003年版,第220-222页。
2《马克思恩格斯选集》第3卷,人民出版社1995年版,第305页。
2童之伟、殷啸虎主编:《宪法学》,上海人民出版社、北京大学出版社2009年版,第166页。
1参见张文显主编:《法理学》(第三版),高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2007年版,第323页。
1 [美]德沃金著,冯克利译:《至上的美德——平等的理论与实践》,江苏人民出版社2003年版,导论第1页。
2马岭:《法律上的平等是机会平等而不是结果平等》,《民主与科学》2008年第2期。
3齐延平著:《社会弱势群体的权利保护》,山东人民出版社2006年版,第2页。
1 [英]A.J.M.米尔恩著,夏勇、张志铭译:《人的权利与人的多样性》,中国大百科学术出版社1995年版,第60页。
1谭兢常、信春鹰主编:《英汉妇女与法律词汇释义》,中国对外翻译出版公司1995年版,第145页。
2佟新著:《社会性别研究导论——两性不平等的社会机制分析》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第25页。
1参见赵津芳、岳素兰主编:《男女平等基本国策简明读本》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第12-13页。
2赵津芳、岳素兰主编:《男女平等基本国策简明读本》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第12-13页。
1姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版,第1614页。
2 The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States, Introduction copyright c 1998 by Pauline Maier, A Bantam Classic Book / July 1998, p.53.
3 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.2. [美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第122页。
1 [美]茱迪·史珂拉著:《美国公民权:寻求接纳》,刘满贵译,世纪出版集团上海人民出版社2006年版,第42页。
1 Elizabeth Gaspar Brown, British Statutes in American Law, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School, 1964, p.11.
2 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England,转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory, Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, pp.17-18.
1参见[美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第16-18页。
2 William Bradford和Isaac Allerton的信函,American History Story Review,第8集( 1903年),第294一301页。转引自[美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第33页。
1参见[美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第61-62页。
2 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第63页。
1 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第95页。
2转引自[美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第104页。
3杨庚:《论人权的本质》,载冯卓然、谷春德主编:《人权论集》,首都师范大学出版社1992年版,第118页。转引自徐显明主编:《人权研究》(第一卷)2001年版,第13页。
4 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第103页。
1 Herma Hill Kay & Martha S. West, Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition), West Group, 2002, p.10.
2曲相霏:《人权主体论》,载徐显明主编《人权研究》(第一卷)2001年版,第14页。
3 The book of Abigail and John: selected letters of the Adams family, 1762-1784, edited and with an introduction by L. H. Butterfield, Marc Friedlaender, and Mary-Jo Kline, Harvard University Press, 1975, p.121.
4 The book of Abigail and John: selected letters of the Adams family, 1762-1784, edited and with an introduction by L. H. Butterfield, Marc Friedlaender, and Mary-Jo Kline, Harvard University Press, 1975, p.123.
5 Charles Adams, ed., The words of John Adams (Boston:1856, vol. 9, pp375-378.)转引自Marlene Stein Wortman, Women in American Law, Volume 1, From Colonial Times to the New Deal, Holmes & Meier Publishes, N.Y., 1985, p.76.
1 Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory,Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, p.14.
2参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory, Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, p.17.
3 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.72-73.
4 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.73.
5 Marlene Stein Wortman, Women in American Law, Volume 1, From Colonial Times to the New Deal, Holmes &Meier Publishes, N.Y., 1985, p.118.
1 Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque , 1969, p.40.
2 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.77.
3 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.74.
4 Elizabeth F. Defeis and ]oan Hoff Wilson, Experiment in Equality: The Woman’s Vote, a video presentation in color, Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, N.J. 07101.转引自Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.74.
5参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory, Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, p.15.
1 Act of Feb.22, 1797,ch.89,§11, N.J.21ST Gen. Assembly (1797),转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory,Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996, p.15.
2 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第106页。
3 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第35-36页。
4王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第9页。
1 Nancy Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood, p.70.转引自王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第12页。
2 [美]萨拉·M·埃文斯著:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第69页。
3王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第12页。
4 Women’s America: Refocusing the past, ed. Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron DeHart, Oxford University Press, 1982, p.137.
5何黎萍:《近代美国妇女职业活动考察透视》,《通化师范学院学报》2003年第5期。
1 [美]卡罗尔·卡尔金斯主编:《美国社会史话》,王岱、程毓征译,人民出版社1984年版,第198页。
2 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第137页。
1 [美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第979页。
2参见Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.105.
3 In re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894)
4陆镜生:《美国人权政治——理论和实践的历史考察》,当代世界出版社1997年版,第271页。
1姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版,第1620页。
2姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版,第1620页。
3 United States v. Susan B. Anthony, 24 F. Cas, 829 (N. D. N. Y. 1873) (No. 14, 459)
4 83 U.S.162 (1875)
1 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译:,东方出版社1987年版,第269页,附录表II《在劳动大军中的妇女》。
2 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第320页。
3 [美]萨拉·M·埃文斯著:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第175页。
4 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第39页。
5 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第6页。
1 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第8-9页。
2 83 U.S. 130 (1873)
1 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
1 83 U.S. 130, at 141 (1872)
2 83 U.S. 130, at141 (1872)
3 83 U.S. 130, at 142 (1872)
4 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872),译文参见邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第60页。
1 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第347页。
2 Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U.S.252 (1957)
3 Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S.232(1957)
4 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第347页。
1 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第151页。
2 Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the work Force, 1920-1963, Greenwood Press, 1983. p.58.
3 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第478页。
4 [美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第140页。
5 Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the work Force, 1920-1963, Greenwood Press, 1983. p.58.
1 Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the work Force, 1920-1963, Greenwood Press, 1983, pp.58-59.
2 [美]萨拉·M·埃文斯:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第228页。
3 Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, Yale University Press, 1987, pp.209-210.转引自王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第112页。
4 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第189页。
5 [美]萨拉·M.埃文斯著:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第255页。
6 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第502页。
7 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第518页。
1 [美]萨拉·M.埃文斯著:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,杨俊峰译,辽宁人民出版社1995年版,第259-261页。
2 [美]洛伊斯·班纳著:《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第215页。
1参见[美]洛伊斯·班纳:著《现代美国妇女》,侯文蕙译,东方出版社1987年版,第30页。
1 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, p.66.
2 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, p.131.
3参见Elizabeth M. Meehan, Women’s Rights at work: Campaigns and Policy in Britain and the United States, St. Martin’s Press, 1985, p.8.
4 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978, p.32.
5 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.41.
1 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978, p.31.
2 [美]凯斯·R·桑斯坦著:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第73页。
3 208 U.S. 412 (1908)
1 [美]凯斯·R·桑斯坦著:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第73页。
2 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978, p.72.
3 244 Ill. 509
1 189 N.Y.131.
2 214 N. Y. 395
3 Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979, p.115.
4 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.25.
5 Pauli Murray, The rights of Women, in The Rights of Americans 521,525(N. Dorsen ed. 1971) ,转引自Herma Hill Kay&Martha S. West,Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition) , West Group, 2002, p.15.
1 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第474页。
2 261U.S. 525 (1923)
3 261U.S. 525, at 553 (1923)
1 300 U.S. 379, at 391 (1937)
2 300 U.S. 379, at 393 (1937)
3 300 U.S. 379, at 394 (1937)
4 300 U.S. 379, at 398(1937)
1 300 U.S. 379, at 400 (1937)
2 335 U.S. 464 (1948)
1 335 U.S. 464, at 466 (1948)
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 415 Ill.564
5 127 N.J.574
6 202 Pa. Super. 389, 195 A.2d 828.
7 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978, p.121.
1 Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque , 1969, p.278, footnote15.
2 Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque, 1969, p.102.
1 United Statutes at Large, 92d Cong., 2d. Sess., 86 Stat. 1523 (1972)
1参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory,Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996.P178-180; Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process, Longman Inc., 1979, pp.2-3; [美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第974-975页。
2 Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process, Longman Inc., 1979, p.4.
3 Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process, Longman Inc., 1979, p.5.
4转引自[美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第269页。
1王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版,第337页。
3 Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 875(1970-1971).
4 Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 882 (1971).
5 Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 884 (1971).
1 Ibid.
2 Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971)
3 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S.677, at 688 (1973)
4 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, at 692 (1973)
5 Paul Freud, The Equal Rights Amendment Is Not the way, 6 Harv. C. R.-C.L. L. Rev. 234 (1971).
1 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.136-138.译文参照邱小平著《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第474页。
2 Paul Freud, The Equal Rights Amendment Is Not the way, 6 Harv. C. R.-C.L. L. Rev. 234 (1971).
3 [美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著,张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第976页,注释11。
4参见陆镜生:《美国人权政治——理论和实践的历史考察》,当代世界出版社1997年版,第347-348页。
1 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第366页。
2 153 Cong. Rec. S3845 (2007)
3 Martha F. Davis, Equal Rights Amendment: Then and Now, 17 Colum. J. Gender & L. 428(2008).
1 Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961)
2 Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S.57, at 61-62(1961)
1 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975)
2 Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S.71(1971)
1邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第478页。
2 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497(1954)
1 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
1 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
2 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, at 199 (1976)
1 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, at 210 (1976)
2 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 199, at 211 (1976)
1 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.129.
1 [美]盖尔·柯林斯著:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译,东方出版社2006年版,第543页。
2 110 Cong. Rec. 2720 (l964)
3 110 Cong. Rec. 2577 (l964)
4 Jo. Freeman, How 'Sex' Got Into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy, this article is
1 [美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第239页。
2 Michael Evan. Gold, A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for the Issue of Comparable Worth. Faculty Publications—Collective Bargaining, Labor Law, and Labor History, Cornell, 1981, http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cbpubs
3 110 Cong. Rec. 2581 (l964)
4 110 Cong. Rec. 2578 (l964)
5 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, p.81.
1参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, pp.81-82.
1 417 U.S. 484 (1974)
2 429 U.S. 125 (1976)
1 [美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第235页。
2 3 C.F.R.§201 (1961)
1 President’s Commission on the Status of Women Report of the Committee on Private Employment 5 (1963).参见Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque, 1969, p.279, footnote20.
2参见[美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第235-237页。
3参见[美]德博拉. G.费尔德著:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,姚燕瑾、徐欣译,新星出版社2006年版,第236-237页;[英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,张聚国译,商务印书馆2007年版,第367页。
4参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2004, p.102.
1参见Arthur Larson & Lex. K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination 1 Sex, Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter V, pp.5-9.
1 Bureau of Nat'l Affairs Survey, BNA Fair Empl. Prac. Manual, Summ. No. 80 (April 1967).转引自Arthur Larson & Lex. K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination 1 Sex, Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter V, p.10.
1 29 CFR§1604.1 (1965)
2 29 CFR§1604.1 (b) (1968)
1 29 CFR§1604.1 (1965)
2 29 CFR§1604.1 (b) (1968)
1 29 CFR§1604.2 (b) (1969)
1 Coon v. Tingle , 277 F.Supp.304(N.D.Ga.1967)
2 Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 284 F.Supp.950,956 (C.D.Cal.1968)
3 Ward v. Luttrell, 202 F.Supp.165 (E.D.La.1968)
4参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.269-270.
5 Rosenfeld V. Southern Pacific Company, 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971 )
1 D. Oregon: Richards v. Griffith Rubber Mills, 300 F. Supp. 338 (D. Ore. 1969)
2 McCrimmon V. Daley, 418 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1969)
3 Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company , 408 F.2d 228(5th Cir. 1969)
4 Caterpillar Tractor Co. V. Grabiec, 317 F. Supp. 1304 (D. Ill. 1970)
5 Garneau v. Raytheon Co., 323 F. Supp. 391 (D. Mass. 1971)
6 Ridinger v. General Motors Corp., 325 F. Supp. 1089 (D. Ohio 1971), rev’d on other grounds, 474 F.2d 949
7 Kober v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 325 F. Supp. 467 (W.O. Pa. 1971), affd. 480 F.2d 240 (3d Cir.1973)
8 Krauss v. Sacramento Inn, 314 F. Supp. 171 (0. CaI. 1970)
1 Sail’er Inn. v. Kirby, 5 CaI. 3d I, 95 CaI. Rptr. 329, 485 P. 2d 529 (1971)
2参见Arthur Larson & Lex. K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination Vol.1 Sex, Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter5, pp.2-3.
3参见Arthur Larson & Lex. K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination Vol.1, Sex, Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter V, pp5-7.
4参见Now Legal Defense and Education Fund and Dr. Renée Cherow-O’Leary, The State-By-State Guide to Women’s Legal Rights, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1987.
1 Ginder, Factors of Sex in Office Employment, 36 Office Executive (Feb. 1961), p. 11.转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross, Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.210.
2 Careers for Women as Technicians, Women's Bureau Bulletin 282 (Washington, D.C.: 1962), p. 3.转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.210.
3 Oppenheimer, The Female Labor Force in the United States: Demographic and Economic Factors Governing Its Growth and Changing Composition 109-114, 104-105 (1970).转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.208.
1 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc.2004, p.131.
2 Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic Hisory of American Women,载Editor Paul Burstein, Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, 1994, p24.
3 Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971)
1 Inda v. United Air Lines, Inc., 565 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1977)
2 EEOC Dec. No. 71-2613, C.C.H. EEOC Dec. (1973) 11 6285 (June 22, 1971), 4 F.E.P. 22
3 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Women's Bureau, Background Facts on Women Workers in the United States 1 (1970),转引自Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.208.
1 Edmund S. Phelps, The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism, 62 American Economic Review659-671(1972).
2 29 C.F.R.§1604.2(a)
3 29 C.F.R.§1604.3(a)
4 41 C.F.R.§6O-20.5(b) (1970)
1 E.E.D.C. Dec. No. 71-796, C.C.H. Empl. Prac. Guide ? 6189 (1970)
2 E.E.D.C. Dec. No. 71-2338, C.C.H. Empl. Prac. Guide ? 6247 (1970)
3 Thompson v. Boyle, 21 F.E.P. 57 (D. D.C. 1979)
4 Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp. 763 (D. D.C. 1973)
5 Carter v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 777 (D. Tex. 1979)
6参见Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 6, p.3-5.
1 29 C.F.R.§1604.5 (1972)
2 41CFR. 60-20.2 (b)
3 Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 6, p.11.
4 Armstrong v. Index Journal Co., 647 F.2d 441 (4th Cir. 1981)
1 110 Cong. Rec. 2728(1964),转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 3, p.9.
2 110 Cong. Rec 13,825. See the quotation from the Court’s Opinion at N. 11 supra this subsection,which does precisely that.转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 3, p.9.
1 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 411 F.2d 1(5th Cir. 1969)
2 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 411 F.2d 1(5th Cir. 1969)
3参见Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 3, p.8.
4 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 416 F.2d 1257(5th Cir. 1969)
5 Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 781, 783 (E. D. La. 1967)
6 Stroud v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 544 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1977)
1 EEOC v. Delta Airlines,18 F.E.P. 35 (5th Cir. 1978)
2 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542, at 544 (1971)
1 Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 400 U.S.542, at 545(1971)
2 Ibid.
3 Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971)
4 Inda v. United Air Lines, Inc., 565 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1977)
1 EEOC Guidelines,§1604.4 (a)
2 41 C.F.R.§6O-20-3(d) (1970)
3 Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980. , Chapter 3, p.15.
4 Coble v. Hot Springs School District, No.6,682 F2d 721,727 (8th Cir. 1982)
1 29 C.F.R.§1604.7
2 EEOC Dec. No. 72-0386 (Aug. 24, 1971), Empl. Prac. Guide 11 6295
3参见Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 6, pp.36-37.
1 29 C.F.R.§1604.2(a)(1970)
2 Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711,718 (7th Cir. 1969)
1 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969)
2 E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 70445 (Jan. 19, 1970), C.C.H. Empl. Prac. Guide ?6107. See also E.E.O.C. (Dec. No. 70-88, Case No. YCL9-094 (Aug. 19, 1969), C.C.H. EEOC Dec. ?6057 (1973)参见Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Charpter6, p.6.
3 303 F. Supp. 754 (M.D. Ala.1969)
4 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971 )
1 653 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1981)
2 Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711,718 (7th Cir. 1969)
3 Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969)
1 Cheatwood v. South Central Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 303 F. Supp. 754 (M.D. Ala.1969)
2 Rosenfeld V. Southern Pacific Company, 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971 )
3 442 F.2d 385, 389 (5th Cir. 1971)
1 Fernandez v. Wynn Oil Co. 653 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1981)
2 Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 4, p.3.
3 29 C.F.R.§1604.2(a) (1970)
4 Healey v. Southwood Psychiatric Hospital, 78 F.3d 128(3d Cir. 1996)
1 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), Footnote 6.
1 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 335 (1977)
1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 802 (1973)
2 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 802 (1973), Footnote 13.
3 Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 577 (1978)
4 Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir.1992)
1 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 250-251(1981)
2 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254(1981)
3 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253(1981)
1 Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003, 1014 (1st Cir.1979),转引自Bell v. Birmingham Linen Service, 715 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir.1984)
2 Armstrong v. Index Journal Co., 647 F.2d 441 (4th Cir. 1981)
3 EEOC V. Yenkin-Majestic Paint Corp. 112 F. 3d 831(6th Cir., 1997)
1 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, at 258 (1981)
2 Ibid.
3 Furnco Construction Corp. V. Waters,438 U.S. 577-578(1978)
4 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, at 260 (1981)
1 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, at 253(1981)
2 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 804 (1973)
3 Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs V. Burdine, 450 U.S.248, 256 (1980)
4 Bell v. Birmingham Linen Service, 715 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir.1984)
1 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
2 Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978)
3 Heim v. Utah, 8 F. 3d 1541( 10th .1993)
4 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
1 Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F. 3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996)
2 Patterson v. Mclean Credit Union, 491 U.S.164, 187 (1989)
3 La Montagne, 750 F.2d at 1414-15,引自Kier v. Commercial Union Ins. Cos., 808 F.2d 1254, 1259 (7th Cir. 1987)
1 EEOC V. Yenkin-Majestic Paint Corp. 112 F. 3d 831(6th Cir., 1997)
2 Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 258 (1981)
1 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
1 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
1 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 429-430 (1971)
3 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 431(1971)
4 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 432 (1971)
1 29 C.F.R 1607.3A
2 Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982)
3 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 431 (1971)
4 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, at 432 (1971)
1 Ward's Cove Packing v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642
1 Ward's Cove Packing v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642, at 659-661 (1989)
2 Wards Cove Packing Co., Ine. V. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, at 661 (1989)
3 Wards Cove Packing Co., Ine. V. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, at 663 (1989)
4 Herma Hill Kay&Martha S. West, Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition),West Group, 2002, p.558.
5 Civil Rights Act of 1991, SEC. 2. (2). , SEC. 3. (2), SEC. 3. (3).
1 29 C.F.R.§1607.4D
2参见Robert Belton, Dianne Avery, Maria L. Ontiveros, Roberto L. Corrada, Employment Discrinination Law: Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace, Seventh Edition, the Labor Law Group, 2004, pp.227-228.
3 29 C.F.R.§1607.4D
1 M. Ali Raza, A. Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr., The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action Preferences, Praeger Publishers, 1999, p.21.
2 Firefighters Inst. For Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 616 F.2d 350, 356-57 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S.938, 101 S. Ct. 3079,69 L.Ed.2d 951(1981),参见Robert Belton, Dianne Avery, Maria L. Ontiveros, Roberto L. Corrada, Employment Discrimination Law: Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace, Seventh Edition, the Labor Law Group, 2004, p.228.
3 29 C.F.R.§1607.5
4 Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 181 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1999)
1 6 A.D.2d 364, 320 N.Y.S.2d 788 (1971), affd, 29 N.Y.2d 921, 329 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1972)
2 7 F.E.P. 1001 (Cat. App. 1974)
3 38 A.D.2d 25 416,326 N.Y.S.2d 640 (1971)
1 471 F. Supp. 670 (D. Md. 1979)
2 62 F.R.D. 98 (D. Ky. 1973), modified and affd. 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir. 1975)
3 586 S.W. 2d 270 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979)
4 411 F. Supp. 218 (N.D. Ill. 1976)
5 520 F.2d 492 (6th Cir. 1975), cerro denied. 426 U.S. 341
6 395 F. Supp. 378 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
7 21 Cal. 3d 1.145 Cal. Rptr. 176, 576 P.2d 1342 (1978)
8 39. 619 F.2d 611, cert. denied 449 U.S. 872 (1980) ,Toledo, Ohio
1 536 F.Supp. 177(E.D.N.Y.1982), affirmed 705 F.2d 584(2d Cir.1983)
2 906 F.2d 209 (6th Cir.1990)
1 181 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1999)
2 Zamlen v. City of Cleveland 906 F.2d 209 (6thCir, 1990)
1 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, at 330 (1977)
2 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, at 332 (1977)
3 Boyd v. Ozark Air Lines, 568 F.2d 50 (8th Cir. 1977)
1 395 F. Supp. 378 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
2 536 F.Supp. 177(E.D.N.Y.1982), affirmed 705 F.2d 584(2d Cir.1983)
3 39. 619 F.2d 611, cert. denied 449 U.S. 872 (1980)
1 Berkmam v. City of New York, 536 F.Supp. 177(E.D.N.Y.1982), affirmed 705 F.2d 584(2d Cir.1983).
2 Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 181 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1999).
1 Berkman v. City of New York, 812 F.2d 52 (2d Cir.1987)
2 Zamlen v. City of Cleveland 906 F.2d 209 (6th Cir.1990)
1 Robert Belton, Dianne Avery, Maria L. Ontiveros, Roberto L. Corrada, Employment Discrinination Law: Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace, Seventh Edition, the Labor Law Group, 2004.
1参见Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 929-930 (1971).
2 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
1参见Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 929-930 (1971)
2 Turner v. Department of Emplt. Security, 423 U.S. 44 (1975)
1 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, at 640-641 (1974)
2 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, at 643-646 (1974)
1 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, at 647 (1974)
2 Turner v. Department of Emplt. Security, 423 U.S. 44 (1975)
1 Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, at 494 (1974)
1 Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, at 496-497 (1974).
1 Equal Opportunity Commission as amicus curiae v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 511 F.2d 199(1975)
2 General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976)
3 Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, at 501 (1974)
1 Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.38.
1 29 C.F.R.§1604.10
1参见Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.74-75,Table 7.3.
2 Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.76.
3参见Lisa A. Rodensky, California Federal Savings & Loan Association V. Guerra: Preferential Treatment and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 10 Harv. Women’s L. J. 234, 1987.
1 California Fed. S & L v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 288-291 (1987)
1 Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)
1参见Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.82-84.
1 Doerr v. B.F. Goodrich Co. 22 F.E.P. 345 (N.D. Ohio 1979)转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 4, p.14.
2 Wright v. Olin Corp., 697 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1982)
1 Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital, 726 F.2d 1543 (CA11 1984)
2 Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)
1 Doerr v. B.F. Goodrich Co. 22 F.E.P. 345 (N.D. Ohio 1979)转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 4, pp.14-15.
1 Wright v. Olin Corp., 697 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1982)
2 Wright v. Olin Corp., 697 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1982)
1 Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital, 726 F.2d 1543 (CA11 1984)
2 Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital, 726 F.2d 1543 (CA11 1984)
1 Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)
1 Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)
2 Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S.187, at 208-211 (1991)
1转引自Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980, Chapter 4, pp.15-16.
2 Vibiana M. Andrade, The Toxic Workplace: Title VII Protection For The Potentially Pregnant Person, 4 Harv. Women’s L. J. 71,103 (1981).
3 Ibid.
4 Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993, p.39.
1 Dorothy Jongeward, Dru Scott and Contributors, Affirmative Action For Women: A Practical Guide, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1973, p75.
1 443 U.S. 203(1979)
2 Anne Peters, Women, quotas and Constitutions: A comparative study of Affirmative Action For Women under American, German, EC and International Law, Kluwer Law International, 1999, p31.
1 567 F.2d 730 ( 7th Cir.1977)
2 Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’International Union v. EEOC et al. 478 U.S. 421(1986)
1 Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193 (1979)
1 Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193, at 203, 205-207 (1979)
2 Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193, at 208-209 (1979)
3 Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193, at 212 (1979)
1参见David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of Affirmative Action, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 42-50, 1988-1990.
2 567 F.2d 730 ( 7th Cir.1977)
3 438 U.S.265 (1978)
4 448 U.S.448(1980)
1 488 U.S.469(1989)
2 515 U.S.200 (1995)
3 467 U.S.561(1984)
1 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004, p.103.
2 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004, p.104.
3参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004, p.105.
4 M. Ali Raza, A.Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr., The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action Preferences, Praeger Publishers, 1999, p.14.
1 41CFR§60-2.1
1 41C.F.R§60.2.16 (e)
2 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004, p.126.
3 19 Ohio St.2d 35, 249 N.E.2d 907, 908, 910 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1004, 90 S.Ct. 554, 24 L.Ed.2d 495 (1970).参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc.2004, p.126.
1 442 F.2d 159 (3~(rd) Cir, 1971)
2 Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, p.50.
1参见David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of Affirmative Action, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 48, 1988-1990.
2参见David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of Affirmative Action, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 50,1988-1990.
3 29CFR1607.17
1参见Chart[2-5]“1970年女性在不同教育层次的比例”,Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross, Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.523.
2 Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc.2004, p.131.
1参见Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc.2004. P131—132.;Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross, Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.525-528.
2参加Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.528.
3 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, p.529.
1 Bazell, Sex Discrimination: Campuses Face Contract Loss Over HEW Demands, 170 Science 834-835 (Nov. 20, 1970),参见Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.535-536.
2 Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975, pp.532-533.
1 George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Edley, Jr., Affirmative Action Review Report to the President 8.1
2 41 C.F.R. Part 60-4.6(1978),参见Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002.P9.
3 George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Edley, Jr.,Affirmative Action Review Report to the President 10.2.1
4 [英]J.D.波尔著:《美国平等的历程》,商务印书馆2007年版,第372-373页。
5参见Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, pp.7-21.
6 Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, p.83.
7 682 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir, 1982)
1 David La Rivier v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., 682 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir, 1982)
2 480 U.S.616 (1987)
1 Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S.616, at 634-642 (1987)
1 Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S.616, at 646-647 (1987)
2 Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, p.54.
1参见J.Edward Kellough, Understanding Affirmative Action: politics, discrimination, and the search for justice, Georgetown University Press, 2006, Washington. D. C., p.54.
2 J.Edward Kellough, Understanding Affirmative Action: politics, discrimination, and the search for justice, Georgetown University Press, 2006, Washington. D. C., p.56.
3 J.Edward Kellough, Understanding Affirmative Action: politics, discrimination, and the search for justice, Georgetown University Press, 2006, Washington. D. C., p.57.
2参见M. Ali Raza, A.Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr., The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action Preferences, Praeger Publishers, 1999, pp.80-81.
3 515 U.S.200 (1995).在该案中,1989年联邦交通部中央高速公路局把科罗拉多州一段高速公路的建筑合同给予一家总承包商,该总承包商把高速公路的护栏合同分包出去。建筑总合同规定,如果总承包商雇佣的分包商是经确认的,由社会和经济上受损害的个人控制的小型企业,总承包商可获额外补偿。Gonzales公司因属于这样的企业而中标,而阿达让建筑公司虽投标最低却未能中标。本案涉及的《小型企业管理法》,该法宣布的政策是,由社会和经济上受损害的个人所有和控制的小型企业,应有最大的可行机会,参与履行任何联邦机构发包的合同。该法把“社会上受损害的个人”定义为,由于其属于某一团体成员,不顾其个人品质而遭受种族歧视侵害或文化偏见的人;“经济上受损害的个人”定义为,那些在社会上受损害的个人,其在自由企业制度下竞争的能力,和没有在社会上受损害的同一行业其他人相比,资金少,信贷机会少。该法确认的政府目标是,每一个财政年度,由社会和经济上受损害的个人所有和控制的小型企业参与所有总承包合同和分包合同金额的总数不应少于5%。该法要求,各联邦机构应负责制定本部门的落实目标。本案涉及的《联邦交通和分配资助法》要求联邦交通部制定拨款措施时应规定,至少10%的联邦资金必须用于由社会和经济上受损害的个人所有和控制的企业。根据该法规定,黑人、西班牙裔美国人、土著美国人、亚太裔美国人或妇女都可假定其在社会和经济上受到损害,有资格享受该法优待。译文参见邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第414-415。
1参见Anne Peters, Women, quotas and Constitutions: A comparative study of Affirmative Action For Women under American, German, EC and International Law, Kluwer Law International 1999, pp.39-40.
1 Address of 4 June 1965. United States, President(1963-1969: Johnson), Public Papers of the Presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson1965, Book2, 636, Item 301(1966). Anne Peters, Women, quotas and Constitutions: A comparative study of Affirmative Action For Women under American, German, EC and International Law, Kluwer Law International, 1999, p38.
2 Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, at 403, 405, 407 (1978)
1参见邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第363页。
2 Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, at 293、295、298 (1978)
3 Albert G. Mosley & Nicholas Capaldi, Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996, pp.73-76.
1 David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of Affirmative Action, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J.42,1988-1990.
2 Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, at 297(1978)
1 Herma Hill Kay&Martha S. West,Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition) , West Group, 2002, p.540.
3 Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002, p.84.
1参见欧阳和霞:《回顾中国现代历史上“妇女回家”的四次争论》,《中国女子学院学报》2003年第3期。
1参见欧阳和霞:《回顾中国现代历史上“妇女回家”的四次争论》,《中国女子学院学报》2003年第3期。
1刘连泰:《平等与偏爱:女性退休年龄规定的合宪性分析》,《法商研究》2006年第5期。
1李傲著:《性别平等的法律保障》,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第23页。
1.郭夏娟著:《为正义而辩——女性主义与罗尔斯》,人民出版社2004年版。
2.林来梵著:《从宪法规范到规范宪法》,法律出版社2001年。
3.陆镜生著:《美国人权政治——理论和实践的历史考察》,当代世界出版社1997年版。
4.齐延平著:《社会弱势群体的权利保护》,山东人民出版社2006年版。
5.邱小平著:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
6.薛宁兰著:《社会性别与妇女权利》,社会科学文献出版社2008年版。
7.佟新著:《社会性别研究导论——两性不平等的社会机制分析》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
8.童之伟著:《法权与宪政》,山东人民出版社2001年版。
9.王恩铭著:《20世纪美国妇女研究》,上海外语教育出版社2002年版。
10.王立著:《平等的范式》,科学出版社2009年版。
11.王希著:《原则与妥协:美国宪法的精神与实践》,北京大学出版社2000年版。
12.夏勇著:《人权概念起源——权利的历史哲学》(修订版),中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
13.肖巧平著:《社会性别视野下的法律——女性与法律》,中国传媒大学出版社2006年版。
14.周安平著:《性别与法律》,法律出版社2007年版。
15.周伟著:《宪法基本权利司法救济研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
16.周伟等著:《中国的劳动就业歧视:法律与现实》,法律出版社2006年版。
17.周伟等著:《禁止就业歧视的法律制度与中国的现实》,法律出版社出版2008年版。
18.周仲秋著:《平等观念的历程》,海南出版社2002年版。
19.朱应平著:《论平等权的宪法保护》,北京大学出版社2004年版。
1.《马克思恩格斯选集》第三卷,人民出版社1995年版。
2.《马克思恩格斯选集》第四卷,人民出版社1995年版。
3.中国法学会研究部编:《马克思恩格斯论法》,法律出版社2010年版。
4.[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨著,王军等译:《美国法律史》,中国政法大学出版社1990年版。
5.[美]丹尼斯·劳埃德著,M.D.A.弗里曼修订,许章润译:《法理学》,法律出版社2007年版。
6.[美]德博拉. G.费尔德著,姚燕瑾、徐欣译:《女人的一个世纪——从选举权到避孕药》,新星出版社2006年版。
7.[美]E.博登海默著,邓正来、姬敬武译:《法理学——法哲学及其方法》,华夏出版社1987年版。
8.[美]弗里丹著,程锡麟、朱徽、王晓路译:《女性的奥秘》,广东经济出版社2005年版。
9.[美]盖尔·柯林斯著,暴永宁、何开松、刘智宏译:《美国女人:玩偶苦力内助英雄》,东方出版社2006年版。
10.[美] J .范伯格著,王守昌、戴栩译:《自由、权利和社会正义——现代社会哲学》,贵州人民出版社1998年版。
11.[美]杰罗姆·巴伦、托马斯·迪恩斯著:《美国宪法概论》,刘瑞祥等译,中国社会科学出版社1995年版。
12.[美]凯特·米利特著,宋文伟译:《性政治》,江苏人民出版社2000年版。
13.[美]凯瑟琳·A·麦金农著,曲广娣译:《迈向女性主义的国家理论》,中国政法大学版社2007年版
14.[美]凯斯·R·桑斯坦著:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
15.[美]罗伯特·诺齐克著,何怀宏等译:《无政府、国家与乌托邦》,中国社会科学出版社1991年版。
16.[美]罗纳德·德沃金著,冯克利译:《至上的美德——平等的理论与实践》,江苏人民出版社2003年版。
17.[美]洛伊斯·班纳著,侯文蕙译:《现代美国妇女》,东方出版社1987年版。
18.[美]萨拉·M·埃文斯著,杨俊峰译:《为自由而生——美国妇女历史》,辽宁人民出版社1995年版。
19.[美]斯密特、谢利、巴迪斯著:《美国政府与政治》,梅然译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
20.[美]彼得·伊龙斯著、上海市政协编译组译:《为权益而战》,上海译文出版社1997年版。
21.[美]约翰·罗尔斯著,何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译:《正义论》,中国社会科学出版社1988年版。
22.[美]保罗·布莱斯特、桑福·列文森、杰克·巴尔金、阿基尔·阿玛编著,张千帆、范亚峰、孙雯译:《宪法决策的过程:案例与材料》(第四版),中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
23.[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴著,李曦、蔡蓁译:《实践中的道德》(第六版),北京大学出版社2006年版。
24.[美]茱迪.史珂拉著,刘满贵译:《美国公民权:寻求接纳》,世纪出版集团上海人民出版社2006年版。
25.[澳]维拉曼特著,张智仁、周伟文译:《法律导引》,上海人民出版社2003年版。
26.[英]A.J.M.米尔恩著,夏勇、张志铭译:《人的权利与人的多样性》,中国大百科学术出版社1995年版。
27.[德]威尔福莱德.亨氏著,倪道钧译:《被证明的不平等——社会正义原则》,中国社会科学出版社2008年版。
28.[英]J.D.波尔著,张聚国译:《美国平等的历程》,商务印书馆2007年版。
29.[印度]阿玛蒂亚.森著,王利文、于占杰译:《论经济不平等/不平等之在考察》,社会科学文献出版社2006年版。
1.北京大学法学院司法研究中心编:《宪法的精神》,中国方正出版社2003年版。
2.蔡定剑主编:《中国就业歧视现状及反歧视对策》,社会科学出版社2007年版。
3.复旦大学人权研究中心编:《复旦人权研究》,复旦大学出版社2004年版。
4.韩大元主编:《宪法学》,高等教育出版社2007年版。
5.姜士林等主编:《世界宪法全书》,青岛出版社1997年版。
6.李傲、罗英主编:《中国性别平等状况调查报告》,中国社会科学出版社2008年版。
7.李昌道编著:《美国宪法史稿》,法律出版社1986年版。
8.李薇薇主编:《禁止就业歧视:国际标准和国内实践》,法律出版社2006年版。
9.林晓云等编著:《美国劳动雇佣法》,法律出版社2007年版。
10.麦克思中国大学生就业研究课题组编著:《2009年中国大学生就业报告》,社会科学文献出版社2009年版。
11.全国人大常委会法制工作委员会行政法室编著:《就业促进法(草案)参考》,中国民主法制出版社2007年版。
12.谭琳、姜秀花主编:《社会性别平等与法律研究和对策》,社会科学文献出版社2007年版。
13.谭琳主编:《中国性别平等与妇女发展报告1995-2005》,社会科学文献出版社2006年版。
14.谭琳主编:《2006-2007年:中国性别平等与妇女发展报告》,社会科学文献出版社2008年版。
15.谭兢常、信春鹰主编:《英汉妇女与法律词汇释义》,中国对外翻译出版公司1995年版。
16.童之伟、殷啸虎主编:《宪法学》,上海人民出版社、北京大学出版社2009年版。
17.王政、杜芳琴主编:《社会性别研究选译》,生活·读书·新知三联书店1998年版。
18.徐显明主编:《人权研究》第一卷,山东人民出版社2001年版。
19.徐显明主编:《人权研究》第二卷,山东人民出版社2002年版。
20.张文显主编:《法理学》(第三版),高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2007年。
21.张千帆、蔡定剑主编:《海外反就业歧视制度与实践》,中国社会科学出版社2007年版。
22.赵津芳、岳素兰主编:《男女平等基本国策简明读本》,北京大学出版社2008年。
23.中国社会科学院法学院研究所资料室编:《论法律面前人人平等》,社会科学文献出版社2003年版。
24.[美]卡罗尔·卡尔金斯主编,邓明言等译:《美国文化教育史话》,人民出版社1984年版。
25.[美]卡罗尔·卡尔金斯主编,王岱、程毓征译:《美国社会史话》,人民出版社1984年版。
26.[日]藤仓皓一郎等主编:《英美判例百选》,段匡、杨永庄译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
1.许叶萍、石秀印:《在“社会”上贡献,于“市场”中受损——女性就业悖论及其破解》,《江苏社会科学》2009年第3期。
2.钟云萍:《妇女平等就业权的宪法维度——性别就业歧视普适性评价标准的切入》,《行政与法》2009年第8期。
3.徐钢:《论平等就业权在立法归类中的合理差别》,《浙江学刊》2009年第2期。
4.刘美玲:《平等与责任的三种范式及其理论困境》,《四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年第2期。
5.于晓琪:《女权主义方法论意义的中国化解读》,《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年第2期。
6.李云霖:《我国<就业促进法>第27条的宪法学思考》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年第1期。
7.李薇薇:《平等原则在反歧视法中的适用和发展》,《政法论坛》2009年第1期。
8.郑玉敏:《德沃金的社会弱势群体保护理论研究》,《辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)2008年第6期。
9.李雄:《论平等就业权的界定》,《河北法学》2008年第6期。
10.谢增毅:《英美两国就业歧视构成要件比较——简论反就业歧视法发展趋势及我国立法选择》,《中外法学》2008年第4期。
11.饶志静的《英国反就业歧视法律制度研究》,《环球法律评论》2008年第4期。
12.贾丹、肖卫国:《平等的“悖”与“不悖”》,《广西社会科学》2008年第11期。
13.马晓燕:《罗尔斯与马克思平等观的比较研究》,《南京社会科学》2008年第4期。
14.敖双红:《平等保护还是隐形歧视——以劳动法为例》,《法学评论》2008年第3期。
15.马岭:《法律上的平等是机会平等而不是结果平等》,《民主与科学》2008年第2期。
16.武中哲:《单位体制下男女平等就业的政治过程及其局限性》,《文史哲》2007年第6期。
17.高景柱:《民主平等观的困境及超越——罗尔斯与德沃金之争》,《南京社会科学》2007年第11期。
18.张千帆:《平等是一门科学——就业歧视法律控制的比较研究》,《北方法学》2007年第4期。
19.杨海坤:《弱势群体的宪法地位研究》,《法律科学》2007年第4期。
20.马晓燕:《对女性主义“平等”理念的考察和反思》,《妇女研究论丛》2007年第3期。
21.俞彦娟:《从美国平权修正案的争议看男女平权和母亲角色》,《浙江学刊》2007年第3期。
22.陈霞明:《论实质平等》,《江西社会科学》2007年第4期。
23.许卓:《试论美国平等权利修正案的曲折历程》,《长春大学学报》2007年第3期。
24.王蕾:《宪法平等权规定的“规范”分析——以语义学规范理论为视角》,《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2007年第1期。
25.余少祥:《弱势群体保护之法哲学论纲》,《法学评论》2006年第6期。
26.刘连泰:《平等与偏爱:女性退休年龄规定的合宪性分析》,《法商研究》2006年第5期。
27.汗水法:《平等的概念》,《文史哲》2006年第4期。
28.姜先福、彭中礼、王亮:《“肯定性行动计划”的法理学思考——以平等理论为视角》,《时代法学》2006年第6期。
29.何琼、裘谬:《论就业歧视的界定——欧盟“正当理由”理论对我国的歧视》,《法学》2006年第4期。
30.弗朗斯思科H.G.弗雷拉:《不平等的困境》,《江西社会科学》2006年第3期。
31.张星炜:《平等观念及其理论概览》,《科学社会主义》2005年第6期。
32.郭夏娟:《重新解读罗尔斯的正义原则——一种女性主义视角》,《哲学动态》2005年第11期。
33.刑益精:《论合理的差别待遇——宪法平等权的一个课题》,《政治与法律》2005年第4期。
34.刘小楠:《美国女权主义法学平等与差异观研究》,《法制与社会发展》2005年第3期。
35.徐友渔:《当代西方政治哲学中关于平等的讨论》,《云南大学学报》2005第2期。
36.〔芬〕凯塔琳娜·佛罗斯特尔:《实质平等和非歧视法》,《环球法律评论》2005年第1期。
37.武劲松:《美国两性工作平等制度研究》,《法学家》2004年第3期。
38.张洁:《从职工生育保险的发展浅析对妇女就业机会平等权的保障》,《中华女子学院学报》2004年S1期。
39.肖巧平:《中美宪法妇女问题比较研究》,《湖南省社会主义学院学报》2004年第2期。
40.凌新:《论权利的不平等——马克思主义平等正义观的基本原则》,《江汉论坛》2004年第9期。
41.易小明:《论平等生成的哲学基础》,《天津社会科学》2004年第3期。
42.李炳安:《欧盟与美国两性工作平等法制之比较》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第3期。
43.吴宁:《社会弱势群体保护的权利视角及其理论基础———以平等理论透视》,《法制与社会发展》2004年第3期。
44.李薇薇:《论国际人权法中的平等与不歧视》,《环球法律评论》2004年第2期。
45.闫国智:《.现代法律中的平等———平等的主体条件、法律平等的本体及价值》,《法学论坛》2003年第5期。
46.蔡红:《反就业性别歧视法中的“歧视”:从经济学视角》,《江西社会科学》2005年第8期。
47.何黎萍:《近代美国妇女职业活动考察透视》,《通化师范学院学报》2003年第5期。
48.欧阳和霞《回顾中国现代历史上“妇女回家”的四次争论》,《中国女子学院学报》2003年第3期。
49.张爱民:《美国“肯定性行动计划”述评》,《南开大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2000年第3期。
50.沈宗灵:《女权主义法学述评》,《中国法学》1995年第3期。
1.Albie Sachs & Joan Hoff Wilson, Sexism and the Law—A Study of Male Beliefs and Legal Bias in Britain and the United States, The Free Press, New York, 1979.
2.Albert G. Mosley & Nicholas Capaldi, Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1996
3.Anne Peters, Women, quotas and Constitutions: A comparative study of Affirmative Action For Women under American, German, EC and International Law, Kluwer Law International 1999.
4.Arthur Larson & Lex.K. Larson, November 1980 Cumulative Supplement: Employment Discrimination, Volume 1(Sex), Mathew Bender & Company, New York, 1980.
5.Barbara Allen Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Susan C. Ross: Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1975.
6.Barbara Allen Babcock, Sex Discrimination and the Law: History, Practice, and Theory,Little, Brown & Company ( Canada) limited, 1996.
7.Beverley Baines and Ruth Rubio-marin (Editor), The Gender of Constitutinal Jurisprudence, Cambridge University Press 2005.
8.Clair Brown and Joseph A. Pechman, Gender in the Workplace, the Brookings Institution, 1987.
9.Deborah L. Rhode, Justice and Gender: Sex Discrimination and the Law, First Harvard University Press Paperback edition, 1991.
10.Dorothy Jongeward, Dru Scott and Contributors, Affirmative Action For Women: A Practical Guide, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1973.
11.Elizabeth M. Meehan, Women’s Rights at work: Campaigns and Policy in Britain and the United States, St.Martin’s Press, 1985.
12.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Legislative history of titles VII and XI of Civil rights act of 1964,Washington D.C., 1968.
13.Gustavus A. Weber, The Women’s Bureau: Its History, Activiteis and Organization, Original d.Issued as No. 22 of Service monographs of the United States Governent, Reprinted from the edition of 1923, Baltimore First AMS edition published, 1974.
14.Herma Hill Kay&Martha S. West,Text, Cases and Materials on Sex-based Discrimination (Fifth Edition) , West Group (2002)
15.Paul Ong(Editor), Impacts of Affirmative Action: Policies & Consequences in California, AltaMira Press, A Division of Sage Publications, Inc., 1999.
16.Jane Campbell Moriary(Editor), Women and The Law, Thomson Reuters/West, 2008. Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process, Longman Inc. 1979.
17.J . Edward Kellough, Understanding Affirmative Action: politics, discrimination, and the search for justice, Georgetown University Press, 2006, Washington. D. C.
18.Joan Hoff, Law, Gender, and Injustice: A Legal History of U.S. Women, New York University, 1991.
19.Judith A. Baer, Women in American Law, The Struggle toward Equality from the New Deal to the Present, Homees & Meier Publishes, N.Y., 1996.
20.Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection—The Judicial Response to Women’s Labor Legislation, Greenwood Press, 1978.
21.Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the work Force, 1920-1963, Greenwood Press, 1983.
22.Jufiyh G. Greenberg, Martha L. Minow, Dorothy E. Roberts, Women and the Law, Foundation Press, New York, 2004.
22.Kathleen M.Sullivan & Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law ( Sixteenth Edition ), Foundation Press 2007.
23.Katharine T. Bartlett,Deborah L. Rhode, Gender and Law: theory, doctrine, commentary (4th ed.) , 2006 Aspen Publishers, Inc.
24.Kenneth Lawrence & Katharine A. Kols, Sex Discrimination in the Workplace, Aspen Systems Corporation, 1978.
25.Kermit L. Hall.(Editor), Women, The Law, and The Constitution: major historical interpretations collection of essays, Garland Publishing, Inc. New York 1987 .
26.Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque , 1969.
27.Louis Fisher & David Gray Adler, American Constitutional Law, volume I, Constitutional Structures, 7th Edition, Carolina Academic Press, 2007.
28.Marcia Canavan, Woman’s Law, William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 2000.
29.M. Ali Raza, A.Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr., The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action Preferences, Praeger Publishers, 1999.
30.Marion G. Crain, Pauline T. Kim, Michael Selmi.,Worklaw : cases and materials, LexisNexis, c2005
31.Marlene Stein Wortman, Women in American Law, Volume 1, From Colonial Times to the New Deal, Holmes & Meier Publishes, N.Y., 1985.
32.Michel Rosenfeld, Affirmative Action and Justice-A Philosophical and Constitutional Inquiry, Yale University Press, 1991.
33.Nancy E. Mcglen and Karen O’connor, The struggle for equality in the 19th & 20th centuries: Women’s Rights, Praeger Publishers, 1983.
34.Now Legal Defense and Education Fund and Dr. Renée Cherow-O’Leary, The State-By-State Guide to Women’s Leagal Rights, McGraw-Hill Book Company,1987.
35.Paul Burstein (Editor) , Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, 1994.
36.Richard Anker, Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the world, Geneva, International Labour Office, 1998.
37.Robert Belton, Dianne Avery, Maria L. Ontiveros, Roberto L. Corrada, Employment Discrinination Law: Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace, Seventh Edition, the Labor Law Group, 2004.
38.Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women’s Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn, Columbia University Press, 1993.
39. Ronald J. Fiscus, The Constitutional Logic of Affirmative Action, Duke Unverisity Press, 1992.
40. Samuel Leiter & William M. Leiter, Affirmative Action In Antidiscrimination Law and Policy: An Overview and Synthesis, State University of New York Press, 2002.
41.Scott E. Friedman, Sex Law: A Legal Sourcebook on Critical Sexual Issues for the Non-Lawyer, McFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, North Carolina, 1990.
42.Sibyl A. Schwarzenbach and Patricia Smith(Editor), Women and the United States Constitution: History, Interpretation, and Practice, Columbia University Press, 2003.
43.Susan D. Becker, The Origins of the Equal Rights Amendment: American Feminism Between the Wars, Greenwood Press, 1981.
44.Susan D. Clayton and Faye J. Crosby, Justice, Gender, and Affirmative Action, the University of Michigan Press, 1992.
45.Terry H. Anderson, The Pursuit Of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, Oxford University Press, Inc. 2004.
46.Thomas R. Haggard, Understanding Employment Discrimination, Second Edition, LexisNexis, Matthew Bender, 2008.
1.Arianne Renan Barzilay, Women at Work: Towards an inclusive Narrative of the Rise of the Regulatory State, 31 Harv. J.L. & Gender 169 (2008)
2.Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, Ann E. Freedman, Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 871 (1971).
3.Catherine L. Fisk, Looking for a Miracle - Women, Work, and Effective Legal Change Women in the Workplace: Foreword , 13 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 1(2006)
4.David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Distinguishing Five Models of AffirmativeAction, 4 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 42-50,1988-1990.
5.Edmund S. Phelps, The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism, 62 American Economic Review659(1972).
6.Eliot A. Landau and Kermit L. Dunabov, "Sex Discrimination in Employment: a Survey of State and Federal Remedies," 20 Drake Law Rev. 417(June 1971).
7.Herma Hill Kay, Equality and Difference: The Case of Pregnancy, 1 Berkeley Women's L.J.1 (1985)
8.Jennifer K. Brown, The nineteenth Amentment and Women’s equality, 102 Yale L.J 2175 (1993)
9.Joseph P. Kennedy, Sex Discrimination: State Protective Laws Since Title VII,
47 Notre Dame L.514 (1972)
10.Joel WM. Friedman, Gender Nonconformity and the Unfulfilled Promise of Price Waterhouse V. Hopkins, 14 Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 205 (2007)
11.Larry Alexander, What Makes Wrongful Discrimination Wrong? Blases, Preferences, Stereotypes, and Proxies, 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 149 (1992-1993)
12.Lisa A.Rodensky, California Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Guerra: Preferential Treatment and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Case Comments, 10 Harv. Women's L.J.225 (1987)
13.Martha F. Davis, Equal Rights Amendment: Then and Now, 17 Colum. J. Gender & L. 419 (2008).
14.Michael J. Zimmer & Charles A. Sullivan, Structure of Title VII Individual Disparate Treatment Litigation: Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, Inferences of Discrimination, and Burdens of Proof, 9 Harv. Women's L.J. 25 (1986)
15.Miller, Sex Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964,
51 MINN. L. REV. 877 (1967)
16.Paul Freud, The Equal Rights Amendment Is Not the way, 6 Harv. C. R.-C.L. L. Rev. 234 (1971).
17.Pauli Murray & Marry O. Eastwood, Jane Crow and the Law: Sex Discrimination and Title VII, 34 GEO. WASH. L. Rev. 232 (1965-1966).
18.Ryan James, Jane Zara, Equal Protection Fourth Annual Review of Gender and Sexuality Law: I: Constitutional Law Chapter 4 Geo. J. Gender & L.1 (2002-2003)
19.Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Equal Rights Amendment Is the Way, 1 Harv. Women's L.J.19 (1978)
20.Vibiana M. Andrade, Toxic Workplace: Title VII Protection for the Potentially Pregnant Person, 4 Harv. Women's L.J.71 (1981)