NAFTA 2.0与LGBTQ就业歧视

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS
Alex Reed
{"title":"NAFTA 2.0与LGBTQ就业歧视","authors":"Alex Reed","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Because federal law does not expressly prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, LGBTQ Americans were thrilled to learn that a preliminary draft of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) included a provision (the Provision) requiring each nation to enact LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination laws. That excitement promptly turned to despair, however, after the Trump administration insisted on the addition of a footnote (the Footnote) designed to exempt the United States from the Provision. To date, the Footnote has been derided by scholars and trade experts alike as a transparent attempt to evade the Provision's LGBTQ-inclusive mandate. Yet, by focusing only on what the USMCA does not do, these analyses overlook what the agreement does do, even if unintended, to benefit LGBTQ Americans. This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the USMCA's implications for federal antidiscrimination law and demonstrates that—regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in a trio of LGBTQ employment cases—the Footnote actually stands to help, not hinder, the cause of LGBTQ equality.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"57 1","pages":"5-44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12154","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"NAFTA 2.0 and LGBTQ Employment Discrimination\",\"authors\":\"Alex Reed\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ablj.12154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Because federal law does not expressly prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, LGBTQ Americans were thrilled to learn that a preliminary draft of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) included a provision (the Provision) requiring each nation to enact LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination laws. That excitement promptly turned to despair, however, after the Trump administration insisted on the addition of a footnote (the Footnote) designed to exempt the United States from the Provision. To date, the Footnote has been derided by scholars and trade experts alike as a transparent attempt to evade the Provision's LGBTQ-inclusive mandate. Yet, by focusing only on what the USMCA does not do, these analyses overlook what the agreement does do, even if unintended, to benefit LGBTQ Americans. This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the USMCA's implications for federal antidiscrimination law and demonstrates that—regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in a trio of LGBTQ employment cases—the Footnote actually stands to help, not hinder, the cause of LGBTQ equality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"5-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12154\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12154\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12154","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于联邦法律没有明确禁止基于性取向或性别认同的就业歧视,LGBTQ美国人兴奋地得知,美国-墨西哥-加拿大协议(USMCA)的初步草案包括了一项条款(该条款),要求每个国家制定包括LGBTQ的非歧视法律。然而,在特朗普政府坚持要增加一个旨在使美国不受该条款约束的脚注(the footnote)之后,这种兴奋很快变成了绝望。迄今为止,学者和贸易专家都嘲笑该脚注是在公然逃避该条款对lgbtq的包容性授权。然而,由于只关注USMCA没有做的事情,这些分析忽视了该协议对LGBTQ美国人的好处,即使是无意的。本文首次全面分析了USMCA对联邦反歧视法的影响,并证明了无论最高法院如何裁决LGBTQ就业案件,脚注实际上是在帮助而不是阻碍LGBTQ平等的事业。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
NAFTA 2.0 and LGBTQ Employment Discrimination

Because federal law does not expressly prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, LGBTQ Americans were thrilled to learn that a preliminary draft of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) included a provision (the Provision) requiring each nation to enact LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination laws. That excitement promptly turned to despair, however, after the Trump administration insisted on the addition of a footnote (the Footnote) designed to exempt the United States from the Provision. To date, the Footnote has been derided by scholars and trade experts alike as a transparent attempt to evade the Provision's LGBTQ-inclusive mandate. Yet, by focusing only on what the USMCA does not do, these analyses overlook what the agreement does do, even if unintended, to benefit LGBTQ Americans. This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the USMCA's implications for federal antidiscrimination law and demonstrates that—regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in a trio of LGBTQ employment cases—the Footnote actually stands to help, not hinder, the cause of LGBTQ equality.

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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
×
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