性别、盟友、外资企业:美国不允许外国公司违反第七章的案例

Keith E. Sealing
{"title":"性别、盟友、外资企业:美国不允许外国公司违反第七章的案例","authors":"Keith E. Sealing","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1259998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The extent to which foreign corporations as well as their domestic subsidiaries can discriminate against American employees on the basis of sex, age, religion, and national origin in a manner that would be acceptable under their own laws and customs but inimical to American law is currently determined by a muddled jumble of circuit court opinions interpreting a \"[w]e express no view\" Supreme Court footnote. As a result, American victims of sexual discrimination have much less protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the discriminating actor is a foreign corporation or its domestic subsidiary than they do when the discrimination is by a wholly domestic corporation. This results from the courts' interpretations of the relationship between a common Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) provision that allows foreign corporations to hire executive-level employees \"of their choice,\" and Title VII and its 703 bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception that allows discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin (but not race) for certain jobs. This Article will argue that this result, repugnant to the purpose of civil rights laws, is the result of a series of badly reasoned courts of appeal cases and a lack of guidance by the Supreme Court.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sex, Allies, BFOQs: The Case for Not Allowing Foreign Corporations to Violate Title VII in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Keith E. Sealing\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1259998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The extent to which foreign corporations as well as their domestic subsidiaries can discriminate against American employees on the basis of sex, age, religion, and national origin in a manner that would be acceptable under their own laws and customs but inimical to American law is currently determined by a muddled jumble of circuit court opinions interpreting a \\\"[w]e express no view\\\" Supreme Court footnote. As a result, American victims of sexual discrimination have much less protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the discriminating actor is a foreign corporation or its domestic subsidiary than they do when the discrimination is by a wholly domestic corporation. This results from the courts' interpretations of the relationship between a common Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) provision that allows foreign corporations to hire executive-level employees \\\"of their choice,\\\" and Title VII and its 703 bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception that allows discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin (but not race) for certain jobs. This Article will argue that this result, repugnant to the purpose of civil rights laws, is the result of a series of badly reasoned courts of appeal cases and a lack of guidance by the Supreme Court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":357008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employment Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employment Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1259998\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employment Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1259998","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在何种程度上,外国公司及其国内子公司可以基于性别、年龄、宗教和国籍歧视美国雇员,而这种歧视在他们自己的法律和习俗下是可以接受的,但却违背了美国法律。目前,这种歧视是由一大堆巡回法院的意见来决定的,这些意见解释了最高法院“我们不发表意见”的脚注。因此,当歧视行为者是一家外国公司或其国内子公司时,美国性别歧视的受害者受到1964年《民权法案》第七章的保护要比完全由一家国内公司造成的歧视少得多。这源于法院对《友好、商业和航海条约》(FCN)共同条款之间关系的解释,该条款允许外国公司“根据自己的选择”雇用高管级员工,而第七章及其703条善意职业资格(BFOQ)例外条款允许在某些工作中基于宗教、性别或国籍(但不包括种族)进行歧视。本文将论证,这一结果与民权法的宗旨相悖,是一系列上诉案件推理不合理以及最高法院缺乏指导的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sex, Allies, BFOQs: The Case for Not Allowing Foreign Corporations to Violate Title VII in the United States
The extent to which foreign corporations as well as their domestic subsidiaries can discriminate against American employees on the basis of sex, age, religion, and national origin in a manner that would be acceptable under their own laws and customs but inimical to American law is currently determined by a muddled jumble of circuit court opinions interpreting a "[w]e express no view" Supreme Court footnote. As a result, American victims of sexual discrimination have much less protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the discriminating actor is a foreign corporation or its domestic subsidiary than they do when the discrimination is by a wholly domestic corporation. This results from the courts' interpretations of the relationship between a common Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) provision that allows foreign corporations to hire executive-level employees "of their choice," and Title VII and its 703 bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception that allows discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin (but not race) for certain jobs. This Article will argue that this result, repugnant to the purpose of civil rights laws, is the result of a series of badly reasoned courts of appeal cases and a lack of guidance by the Supreme Court.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信