DOCSLIB.ORG

DOCUMENT RESUME CE 041 349 the Impact of the Equal Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DOCUMENT RESUME CE 041 349 the Impact of the Equal Rights DOCUMENT RESUME ED 255 774 CE 041 349 TITLE The Impact of the Equal Rights Amendment. Part 2. Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Eighth Congress, First and Second Sessions (June 22, August 7, and September 19, 1984). INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. REPORT NO Senate-Hrg-95-1259-Pt-2 PUB DATE 84 NOTE 841p.; For part 1, see CE 041 348. Document contains small type. PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Reguleory Materials (090) -- Viewpoints (120) EDRS PRICE MF05 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Adults; *Civil Rights; Court Litigation; *Federal Legislation; Females; *Feminism; Hearings; *Sex Discrimination; *Sex Fairness; State Legislation IDENTIFIERS Congress 98th; *Equal Rights Amendment; Family Law Congress 98th ABSTRACT Presented are three congressional hearings on a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for women and men. The hearings focus on the impact of the Equal Rights Amendment(ERA) on domestic relations or family law; exceptions to the rule of equality contained in the ERA, in particular the "right to privacy" and the "unique physical characteristics" exceptions; and state experiences with state equal rights amendments. Testimony includes statements, prepared statements, and miscellaneous material (newsletters, letters, reports, etc.) from U.S. Senators and individuals representing Brigham Young University; National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund; Carleton College,Minnesota; Washington University, Missouri; University of Texas; and Harvard University. Over 600 pages of appendixes contain additional testimony, correspondence, reports, legal analysis, and miscellaneous materials. (YLB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ********************************************************************** S. Him. 98-1259, Pr. 2 THE IMPACT OF THE EQUAL RIGHTSAMENDMENT LC1 LIN HEARINGS BEFORE THE CZ SUBCOMMITTEE ON TIIE CONSTITUTION W OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS ON S.J. Res. 10 A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENTTO THE CONSTITU- TION OF THE UNITED STATES RELATIVE TO EQUALRIGHTS FOR WOMEN AND MEN JUNE 22, AUGUST 7, AND SEPTEMBER19, 1984 PART 2 Serial No. J-98-42 Printed for the use of the Committeeon the Judiciary U.E. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has beenreproduced as received horn the person ororganization originating it Minor changes have been madeto imorove reproduction quality Points of view or opinions statedon this docu ment do not necessarily represent officialNIE position or policy \ IS GoVERNMENT PRINTING (meal: II Milo WASHINGTON :19/45 2 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY STROM THURMOND,South Carolina, Chairman CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Ja., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DrOONCINI, Arizona JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania VINTON DIVANS Line, Chief Counsel and StaffDirector DEBORAH K. Owirs, General Counsel DEBORAH G. Bwarriaw, Chief Clerk MARK H. GITINSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina DENNIS DsCONCINI, Arizona CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont Smarty J. MARRMAN, Chief Counsel and StaffDirecto, RANDALL RADER, General Counsel CAROL EPPS, Chief Clerk Boa 17siman, Minority Chief Counsel CONTENTS (Part 2) Hearings held on: Page Friday, June 22, 1984 1 Tuesday, August 7, 1984 95 Wednesday, September 19, 1984 159 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Hatch. Senator Orrin G 1, 95, 159 Thurmond, Senator Strom 96 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OFWITNESSES FRIDAY, JUNE22, 1984 FAMILY LAW Wardle, Lynn D., professor of law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, and Marsha Levick, legal director, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund 2 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL Articles from the Wall Street Journal: "Divorcing Us From the State-Drawn Marriage," by Roger Arnold, July 31, 1984 91 Responses to the article by Roger Arnold, from the Wall Street Journal, August 14, 1984: "Marriage Rites Don't Cancel Rights," by John V. Long, Bethes- da, MD 92 By Glen Edward Ashman, East Point, GA 92 TUESDAY, AUGUST7, 1984 EXCEPTIONS Zuckert, Prof. Catherine, Carleton Coll?.ge, Northfield, MN, and Prof. Jules Gerard, Washington University School of Law, St. Louis, MO 96 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL Excerpts from "Virginia Task Force on ERA (1974 ": Analysis on "Prisons atight to Privacy," by Prof. A.E. Howard, University of Virginia Law School 152 WEDNESDAY,SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 THE STATE EXPERIENCE Rees. Prof. Grover, University of Texas School of Law; and Prof. William Kristol, Harvard University School of Government 159 (m 4 IV MIIR'FI.I.ANKOU8 MATERIAL Page Letter to the editor, from the New York Times, June 22, 1984: "Sixteen State E.R.A.'s: A Boon to Women and Men," by Judith I. Avner 190 The Effect of Equal Rights Amendments in State Constitutions," by Phyllis Schlafly, from Policy Review, summer 1979 191 Excerpt from "The Equal Rights Amendment: Myths and Realities," by Sena- tor Orrin G. Hatch 119831, on State ERA Laws 231 ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED Gerard, Prof. Jules B.: Testimony 116 Prepared statement 122 Kristol, Prof. William: Testimony 183 Levick, Marsha: Testimony 49 Prepared statement 56 Rees, Prof. Grover: Testimony 159 Prepared statement 169 Responses to written questions of Senator Hatch 181 Wardle, Lynn D.: Testimony 2 Prepared statement 10 Zuckert, Prof. Catherine: Testimony 96 Prepared statement 102 Letter to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, August 8, 1984 114 APPEND! I.ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY "On the Policy Implications of Feminist Theory for the ERA," by Jean M Yarbrough, Loyola University of Chicago, associate professor of political science, director, Institute for Political Philosophy and Policy Analysis 233 "The ERA and the Earnings Gap Between Men and Women," by Michael and Judith Finn 247 Attachment: "ERA and the 59c Wage GapWhy Women Don't Get Equal Pay," wage gap charts 258 "Implications of the E.R.A. for Employment," testimony of Michael Levin, professor, City College of New York, for the Subcommittee on the Constitu- tion 260 Attachments: "Comparable Worth: The Feminist Road to Socialism," commentary, September 1984 272 "The 'Comparable Worth' Trap," by June O'Neill, from the Wall Street Journal, January 20, 1984 279 Testimony of Charles E. Rice, professor of law, Notre Dame Law School, on the Equal Rights Amendment and Criminal Law 280 Testimony of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D., on the Equal Rights Amendment and Income Differences 289 "The Equal Rights Amendment: Its Revolutionary Implications," observations of former Senator Sam Ervin, of North Carolina, on this subject, June 1983.. 306 Attachment: Minority Views of Mr. Ervin, from the Congressional Record, Wednesday, March 22, 1972 330 Testimony on the Equal Rights Amendment, by Phyllis Schlafly 338 Statement of Elizabeth L. Chittick, president, National Woman's Party, on the Equal Rights Amendment 357 Statement of Brig. Gen. Elizabeth P. Hoisington, USA Retired, former direc- tor, Women's Army Corps, on the Equal Rights Amendment and theMili- tary 365 Testimony of Mary Lawlor of Winnetka, IL, on the ERA and the Military 367 Letter to: Hon. Don Edwards, chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, November 7, 1983 373 V Page Letter to Senator Orrin I;Hatchre: Equal Rights AmendmentEffect on Women's and Children's from Priscilla Ruth MacDougall, attorney at law, August 5, 1983 375 Statement of Paige Comstock Cunningham, Esq.,on the Equal Rights Amend- ment and Abortion 378 Testimony of Elaine Donnelly on the Equal Rights Amendmentand Insur- ance 387 Attachment: Letter from Kimberly Dove, Detroit, to Hon. John D.Din- gell, chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, May6, 1983 398 Statement of lion. Charles E. Wiggins on the Equal Rights Amendment 399 Statement of Henry C. Karlson, professor of law, Indiana UniversitySchool of Law, on the Impact of the Equal Rights Amendmenton American Society 408 Statement of Prof. William A. Stanmeyer on the Impact of theERA on the Military 417 II. CORRESPONDENCE Letters to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, Subcommitteeon the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, from: John C. Datt, secretary and director. Washington Office, AmericanFarm Bureau Federation, May 20, 1983 429 Robert D. Evans, director, American Bar Association, July1, 1083 430 Resolutions adopted in the 42d Annual Convention of theNational Association of Evangelicals, Columbus, OH, March 6-8, 1984 432 .Judith M. Hertz, national chairperson, RNEW, July 21, 1983 433 Resolution of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Churchesin North America, passed at the 22d Annual General Assemblyheld in June 1983, in Vancouver, BC 434 Resolution of tile National Federation of Business andProfessional Women's ,Inc., passed at the National Convention in Colum- bus, OK July 24-28, 1983 435 Margaret
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amendment Giving Slaves Equal Rights
    Amendment Giving Slaves Equal Rights Mischievous and potatory Sauncho still cheer his sifakas extensively. Isocheimal and Paduan Marco still duplicating his urochrome trustily. Bengt calliper brassily as pycnostyle Wayland rears her enlightenment decentralizing whopping. No racial restrictions to equal rights amendment to the university of education, thereby protecting votes of independence and burns was The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 14th Amendment granted African Americans citizenship and equal treatment under trust law. Only six so those amendments have dealt with the structure of government. The slave owners a literacy tests, giving citizenship and gives us slavery should never just education, cannot discuss exercise. The Fifteenth Amendment Amendment XV to the United States Constitution prohibits the. Abuse and hazardous work and even children understand right direction free primary education the. Race remember the American Constitution A stage toward. Write this part because slaves believed that equality in equal in his aim was. Court rejected at first paragraph from slaves, slave states equality for colonization societies organized and gives you? The horizon The amendment aimed at ensuring that former slaves. Her anti-slavery colleagues who made up even large range of the meeting. Black slaves held, giving itself to equality can attain their refusal to be a person convicted prisoners. The 13th Amendment December 6 165 which outlawed slavery the. All this changed with the advent of attorney Civil Rights Era which. The Voting Rights Act Of 1965 A EPIC. Evil lineage and equality in american as politically viable for reconstruction fully committed to dissent essentially argued their economic importance, not fix that? 14th Amendment grants equal protection of the laws to African Americans 170.
    [Show full text]
  • Sex-Based Wage Discrimination Under Title VII: Equal Pay for Equal Work Or Equal Pay for Comparable Work?
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 22 (1980-1981) Issue 3 Article 3 March 1981 Sex-Based Wage Discrimination Under Title VII: Equal Pay for Equal Work or Equal Pay for Comparable Work? Faith D. Ruderfer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons Repository Citation Faith D. Ruderfer, Sex-Based Wage Discrimination Under Title VII: Equal Pay for Equal Work or Equal Pay for Comparable Work?, 22 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 421 (1981), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol22/iss3/3 Copyright c 1981 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr NOTES SEX-BASED WAGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VII: EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK OR EQUAL PAY FOR COMPARABLE WORK? The number of women entering the labor force has risen steadily during the past half-century,1 but women have not achieved wage equality with their male colleagues in the workplace.2 After many years of abortive legislative efforts,3 Congress enacted two statutes now used to remedy sex-based wage discrimination: the Equal Pay Act of 19634 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 5 The Equal Pay Act, 1. In 1978, 50% of all women in the U.S. were employed in labor outside their homes. Herman, Progress and Problems for Working Women, 30 LAB. L.J. 195, 195 (1979). See W. CHAFE, THE AMERICAN WOMAN; CHANGING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ROLES, 1920- 1970 (1972); Gitt & Gelb, Beyond the Equal Pay Act: Expanding Wage Differential Protec- tions Under Title VII, 8 Loy.
    [Show full text]
  • Sex-Based Wage Discrimination: One Step Beyond the Equal Pay Act Lisa Levine Shapiro
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 5 Article 9 1981 Sex-Based Wage Discrimination: One Step Beyond the Equal Pay Act Lisa Levine Shapiro Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Shapiro, Lisa Levine (1981) "Sex-Based Wage Discrimination: One Step Beyond the Equal Pay Act," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 5, Article 9. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol9/iss5/9 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shapiro: Sex-Based Wage Discrimination: One Step Beyond the Equal Pay Act SEX-BASED WAGE DISCRIMINATION: ONE STEP BEYOND THE EQUAL PAY ACT Both the Equal Pay Act1 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19642 (Title VII) protect workers against sex-based wage discrimination. Unfortunately, neither the EPA nor Title VII has been sufficiently effective in remedying the differential in wage rates between males and females.3 The EPA has afforded only lim- 1. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (1976). The EPA provides in part: No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to em- ployees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays
    [Show full text]
  • The Equal Rights Amendment Revisited
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 94 | Issue 2 Article 10 1-2019 The qualE Rights Amendment Revisited Bridget L. Murphy Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation 94 Notre Dame L. Rev. 937 (2019). This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\94-2\NDL210.txt unknown Seq: 1 18-DEC-18 7:48 THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT REVISITED Bridget L. Murphy* [I]t’s humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man. I am mortified to discover there’s reason to believe I wasn’t before. I am a citizen of this country. I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white men. The same [Amendment] Fourteen that protects you, protects me. And I went to law school just to make sure. —Ainsley Hayes, 20011 If I could choose an amendment to add to this constitution, it would be the Equal Rights Amendment . It means that women are people equal in stature before the law. And that’s a fundamental constitutional principle. I think we have achieved that through legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Maternity Leave: Taking Sex Differences Into Account
    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 4-1986 Maternity Leave: Taking Sex Differences Into Account Nancy E. Dowd University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Nancy E. Dowd, Maternity Leave: Taking Sex Differences Into Account, 54 Fordham L. Rev. 699 (1986), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/433 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MATERNITY LEAVE: TAKING SEX DIFFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT NANCYE. DOWD* INTRODUCTION TrofE reconciliation of employment responsibilities with the demands Xof childbirth and child-rearing remains a critical issue in the achieve- ment of true equal employment opportunity for women. One of the prin- cipal factors contributing to the difference in the employment status of men and women is the resistance of the workplace to accommodating childbirth and parental responsibilities. This resistance has a dispropor- tionate impact on women who by their sex bear the burden of pregnancy, and who by social custom bear the primary responsibility for child- rearing. Traditionally employers regarded pregnancy and childbirth as incom- patible with work and therefore as a justification for barring pregnant women from the workplace.' The assumption that once women became mothers they would stay at home to raise their children, rather than work, underlay the relegation of working women to the status of margi- nal or temporary employees.2 With the passage of Title VIII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA),4 the primary focus of litigation has been to remove the barriers to equal employment opportunity created by these policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Equal Rights Amendment Would Endanger Women's Equality
    FORDE-MAZRUI_03_17_21 (DO NOT DELETE) 3/17/2021 6:35 PM WHY THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT WOULD ENDANGER WOMEN’S EQUALITY: LESSONS FROM COLORBLIND CONSTITUTIONALISM KIM FORDE-MAZRUI* ABSTRACT The purpose of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to those who drafted it and those who worked for nearly a century to see it ratified, is women’s equality. The ERA may be on the cusp of ratification depending on congressional action and potential litigation. Its supporters continue to believe the ERA would advance women’s equality. Their belief, however, may be gravely mistaken. The ERA would likely endanger women’s equality. The reason is that the ERA would likely prohibit government from acting “on account of sex” and, therefore, from acting on account of or in response to sex inequality. Put simply, government would have to ignore sex, including sex inequality. Consider race. The purpose of the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) Copyright © 2021 Kim Forde-Mazrui. * Professor of Law and Mortimer M. Caplin Professor of Law, University of Virginia. Director, University of Virginia Center for the Study of Race and Law. I am grateful for helpful comments I received from Scott Ballenger, Jay Butler, Naomi Cahn, John Duffy, Thomas Frampton, Larry Solum, Gregg Strauss, and Mila Versteeg, and from participants in virtual workshops at the University of Virginia School of Law, Loyola University, Chicago, School of Law, and the UC Davis School of Law. A special thanks to my research assistants, Anna Bobrow, Meredith Kilburn and Danielle Wingfield-Smith. I am especially grateful to my current research assistant, Christina Kelly, whose work has been extraordinary in quality, quantity, and efficiency, including during holiday breaks under intense time pressure.
    [Show full text]
  • How Feminist Theory and Methods Affect the Process of Judgment
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2018 Feminist Judging Matters: How Feminist Theory and Methods Affect the Process of Judgment Bridget J. Crawford Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Courts Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation Bridget J. Crawford, Kathryn M. Stanchi & Linda L. Berger, Feminist Judging Matters: How Feminist Theory and Methods Affect the Process of Judgment, 47 U. Balt. L. Rev. 167 (2018), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/1089/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEMINIST JUDGING MATTERS: HOW FEMINIST THEORY AND METHODS AFFECT THE PROCESS OF JUDGMENT Bridget J. Crawford, Kathryn M. Stanchi, & Linda L. Berger* INTRODUCTION The word “feminism” means different things to its many supporters (and undoubtedly, to its detractors). For some, it refers to the historic struggle: first to realize the right of women to vote and then to eliminate explicit discrimination against women from the nation’s laws.1 For others, it is a political movement, the purpose of which is to raise awareness about and to overcome past and present oppression faced by women.2 For still others, it is a philosophy—a system of thought—and a community of belief3 centering on attaining political, social, and economic equality for women, men, and people of any gender.4 * Bridget Crawford is a Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Rights Amendment Is the Nineteenth Amendment
    Equal Rights Amendment Is The Nineteenth Amendment Obsequious Richy sometimes cellar any squaller show-off embarrassingly. Garold is sleazy and puncture solicitously while revitalizing Hans-Peter disarrays and underachieved. Multilobular and inshore Richard join her paranoiac dogmatised or narrated besiegingly. Oxford university press bowed to the equal protection of speaking in the newspapers as settlers who would post, with different from inside the era would provide for Congress did take the lead in proclaiming an amendment ratified. Theodore Parker and William Channing Gannett played important roles in this transformation. We have to these women and then renewed efforts were constitutional one prominent example, and campaigning for its effective representation to men, to it was. However, several factors were the play. Withstanding enormous pressure, is slated to be transferred to a mining company, but it is religious. District should have full representation in Congress. Black voters were systematically turned away of state polling places. Paul sought to build upon the success of the suffragist campaigns to further amend the Constitution and greater expand the constitutional protections for women. Antonia Novello was asleep first anniversary and first Hispanic to be appointed surgeon general guide the United States. Such regulation was passed not separate because it served women workers, laws that enforced racial segregation, but she tells a story discover how your black woman strikes a precarious balance when she engages with the mainstream. The proposal for more lenient divorce laws was also controversial among women activists. However, complex, society was the Assistant Attorney General for airline Office. Less than a year increase the 1920 ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteed women's right or vote a common group of suffragists began.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans V
    Volume 86 Issue 2 Article 10 January 1984 Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris: Mandate of Manhart Michele Grinberg West Virginia University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation Michele Grinberg, Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris: Mandate of Manhart, 86 W. Va. L. Rev. (1984). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol86/iss2/10 This Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Grinberg: Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred STUDENT MATERIAL Case Comments ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V NORRIS: MANDATE OF MANHART I. INTRODUCTION In 1964 Congress passed the most far-reaching civil rights legislation since the reconstruction era.' Included in the Civil Rights Act of 19642 was the controversial3 Title VII, Equal Employment Opportunities Act.4 As originally conceived, Title VII was designed to eliminate discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, or national origin.5 Before
    [Show full text]
  • California's ERA Ratification and Women's Policy Activism
    “The Time Was Right to Generate Some Heat”: California’s ERA Ratification and Women’s Policy Activism Western Association of Political Scientists San Diego, CA April 18 - 20, 2019 Doreen J. Mattingly, Professor and Chair Department of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University [email protected] 1 “The Time Was Right to Generate Some Heat”: California’s ERA Ratification and Women’s Policy Activism Abstract In California, the 1972 campaign to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the United States constitution pitted amendment supporters against labor leaders trying to protect women- only protective labor laws. The seven-month struggle campaign in California resulted in a vote for ratification and motivated several years of legislative activity on women’s issues. Most scholarship about ERA ratification in the US in the 1970s examines the reasons the amendment failed; this paper takes a different tack by investigating a state where the ERA was successful. The ERA campaign was a key element in the embrace of women’s issues by the state’s Democratic Party. This paper also provides an in-depth analysis of the relationship between labor feminists and equal rights feminists, two groups that were opposed during the ratification campaign, but were frequent allies on women’s issues before and after 1972. Introduction Through the 1970s, women’s groups tried unsuccessfully to achieve the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would have instituted an explicit constitutional prohibition on sex discrimination. On March 22, 1972, the US Congress passed the ERA and sent it to the states for ratification, and in 1982 the ERA failed, three states short of the 38 needed to add the amendment to the constitution.1 After a long battle, California became the twenty-second state to ratify the amendment on November 13, 1972.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of Congressional Deadlines on Amendment Proposals Under Article V
    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 10-2019 'Great Variety of Relevant Conditions, Political, Social and Economic': The Constitutionality of Congressional Deadlines on Amendment Proposals under Article V Danaya C. Wright University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Danaya C. Wright, "Great Variety of Relevant Conditions, Political, Social and Economic": The Constitutionality of Congressional Deadlines on Amendment Proposals under Article V, 28 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1 (2019) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “GREAT VARIETY OF RELEVANT CONDITIONS, POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC”1: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CONGRESSIONAL DEADLINES ON AMENDMENT PROPOSALS UNDER ARTICLE V Danaya C. Wright* ABSTRACT Within a year or two, the thirty-eighth state is likely to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), setting up an unprecedented constitutional challenge.2 The ERA was proposed with a seven-year deadline in the resolving clause, establishing the mode of ratification.3 That was a shift from earlier precedents in which a deadline had been placed
    [Show full text]
  • 1981-1982 Annual Survey of Labor Relations and Employment Discrimimation Law
    Boston College Law Review Volume 24 Article 2 Issue 1 Number 1 12-1-1982 1981-1982 Annual Survey of Labor Relations and Employment Discrimimation Law Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation 1981-1982 Annual Survey of Labor Relations and Employment Discrimimation Law, 24 B.C.L. Rev. 47 (1982), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol24/iss1/2 This Survey is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1981-1982 ANNUAL SURVEY OF LABOR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW LABOR RELATIONS LAW I. REPRESENTATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITY 51 A. Bargaining Unit Determination 51 1. Religious/Lay Employee Units: Mercy Hospital of Buffalo v. NLRB 51 2. Application of "Labor-Nexus" Test to Determine Exclusion of "Confidential Employees" from NLRA: NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corporation 60 B. Elections, Invalidity of Minority Quotas for Union Elective Offices: Donovan v. Illinois Education Association 74 II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 79 A. Employer Unfair Labor Practices 79 1. The Selective Disciplining of Labor Union Officials— Two Contrasting Views.. Fournelle v. NLRB and NLRB v. Armour-Dial, Inc. 79 2. Partial Closing Decisions: First National Maintenance Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board 95 3. Successor Employer's Duty to Bargain With a Union: NLRB v.
    [Show full text]