FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W80011954> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W80011954 abstract "Title VII has prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy since 1978, when Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), but it does not require employers to recognize women's caregiving obligations beyond the immediate, physical events of pregnancy and childbirth. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) also does little more than provide job security to some relatively privileged women in the case of childbirth. Neither of these statutes, which constitute the bulk of the United States' maternity and parental leave policies, provides for the most common employment leave needs of caregivers, who by all measures are disproportionately women. This lack of protection has served to perpetuate a significant labor force attachment gap between men and women that has had serious economic and social consequences for women and children. This Article examines the theoretical bases for the law's inability to recognize women's cultural caregiving, i.e., the caregiving work that women perform within the family that is unrelated to reproductive sex differences. Why has our law failed to address the conflicts between work and family that continue to disproportionately burden women? The author suggests that the answer lies in Title VII's categorical framework, which is fundamentally unable to account for cultural experiences that are not universally shared by all women; in societal and judicial commitments to formal equality; and in the pervasive influence on our law of certain core concepts underlying liberal and economic theory, particularly the value of formal equality and the assumption that legal agents are autonomous, rational decision makers. In the final part of the Article, the author reviews some of the primary responses offered by feminist legal theorists to the dominant paradigm, and suggests that such responses have failed to challenge it fully. Feminist theorists have focused on characterizing women's experiences of caregiving as a condition of impaired agency growing out of gender socialization, attempting to fit women's nurturing work into the limited but recognized exceptions to the autonomous, equal, and rational person assumed by the dominant framework. While this strategy has worked to obtain legal recognition of women's biological experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, this Article suggests that it has proved less capable of addressing the rhetoric of choice that legitimates discrimination on the basis of women's cultural experience of caregiving. It is clear that a refinement of the theoretical constructs underlying our law will be necessary before there will be any significant recognition of women's disproportionate responsibility for caregiving as it affects their wage work. This Article suggests that the beginnings of such a construct should focus on the fundamental importance and value to society and to women of women's caregiving labor, not upon depictions of caregiving as a socially-determined, gendered activity. The Article concludes by outlining the beginnings of an alternative paradigm on which to build a theory of workplace accommodation for women's unpaid caregiving work, and reviews a number of concrete legal reforms that might be consistent with this alternative vision." @default.
• W80011954 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W80011954 creator A5065873561 @default.
• W80011954 date "2001-01-01" @default.
• W80011954 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W80011954 title "The Attachment Gap: Employment Discrimination Law, Women's Cultural Caregiving, and the Limits of Economic and Liberal Legal Theory" @default.
• W80011954 cites W120136854 @default.
• W80011954 cites W142165126 @default.
• W80011954 cites W1469406 @default.
• W80011954 cites W1491038297 @default.
• W80011954 cites W1542631252 @default.
• W80011954 cites W1596924757 @default.
• W80011954 cites W2239122020 @default.
• W80011954 cites W2587655696 @default.
• W80011954 cites W2796888629 @default.
• W80011954 cites W2797748090 @default.
• W80011954 cites W3121323925 @default.
• W80011954 cites W775515320 @default.
• W80011954 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.285192" @default.
• W80011954 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W80011954 type Work @default.
• W80011954 sameAs 80011954 @default.
• W80011954 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W80011954 countsByYear W800119542014 @default.
• W80011954 countsByYear W800119542020 @default.
• W80011954 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W80011954 hasAuthorship W80011954A5065873561 @default.
• W80011954 hasBestOaLocation W800119542 @default.
• W80011954 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W80011954 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W80011954 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W80011954 hasConceptScore W80011954C144024400 @default.
• W80011954 hasConceptScore W80011954C17744445 @default.
• W80011954 hasConceptScore W80011954C199539241 @default.
• W80011954 hasLocation W800119541 @default.
• W80011954 hasLocation W800119542 @default.
• W80011954 hasOpenAccess W80011954 @default.
• W80011954 hasPrimaryLocation W800119541 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W1573766785 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W2016717044 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W2335449667 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W2394306283 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W379073799 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W4234480004 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W578832185 @default.
• W80011954 hasRelatedWork W637970887 @default.
• W80011954 isParatext "false" @default.
• W80011954 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W80011954 magId "80011954" @default.
• W80011954 workType "article" @default.