Falling Between the Cracks: Discrimination Laws and Older Women

J. McLaughlin
{"title":"Falling Between the Cracks: Discrimination Laws and Older Women","authors":"J. McLaughlin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3219278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theories and evidence suggest that older women may experience unique discrimination for being both old and female in the workplace. To provide a remedy for this type of discrimination — known as intersectional discrimination — legal scholars argue that age and sex discrimination laws must be used jointly and acknowledge intersectional discrimination (age‐plus‐sex or sex‐plus‐age discrimination) as a separate cause of action. Nonetheless, in general, courts have declined to do so even though older women are protected under both age and sex discrimination laws. This raises a concern that age discrimination laws may be ineffective, or less effective in protecting older women. I test this implication by estimating the differential effect of age discrimination laws on labor market outcomes between older women and older men. My findings show that age discrimination laws did far less to improve labor market outcomes for older women than for older men. These results may explain the persistent findings of discrimination against older women in the existing literature and support the legal scholars' argument that older women's intersectional discrimination must be recognized as a separate cause of action.","PeriodicalId":330006,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Legislation (Private Law - Discrimination) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Legislation (Private Law - Discrimination) (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3219278","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Theories and evidence suggest that older women may experience unique discrimination for being both old and female in the workplace. To provide a remedy for this type of discrimination — known as intersectional discrimination — legal scholars argue that age and sex discrimination laws must be used jointly and acknowledge intersectional discrimination (age‐plus‐sex or sex‐plus‐age discrimination) as a separate cause of action. Nonetheless, in general, courts have declined to do so even though older women are protected under both age and sex discrimination laws. This raises a concern that age discrimination laws may be ineffective, or less effective in protecting older women. I test this implication by estimating the differential effect of age discrimination laws on labor market outcomes between older women and older men. My findings show that age discrimination laws did far less to improve labor market outcomes for older women than for older men. These results may explain the persistent findings of discrimination against older women in the existing literature and support the legal scholars' argument that older women's intersectional discrimination must be recognized as a separate cause of action.
落在裂缝之间:歧视法和老年妇女
理论和证据表明,老年女性在职场中可能会因为既老又女而受到独特的歧视。为了对这种被称为交叉歧视的歧视提供补救,法律学者认为年龄和性别歧视法必须联合使用,并承认交叉歧视(年龄加性别或性别加年龄歧视)是一个单独的诉讼原因。然而,尽管老年妇女受到年龄歧视法和性别歧视法的保护,法院一般还是拒绝这样做。这引起了人们的关注,即年龄歧视法在保护老年妇女方面可能无效,或者效果较差。我通过估计年龄歧视法对老年女性和老年男性劳动力市场结果的不同影响来检验这一含义。我的研究结果表明,年龄歧视法对老年女性改善劳动力市场结果的作用远远小于对老年男性的作用。这些结果可以解释现有文献中对老年妇女歧视的持续发现,并支持法律学者的观点,即老年妇女的交叉歧视必须被视为一个单独的诉因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信