Suchergebnisse

The article examines whether ethnic minority employees report poorer treatment at work than white employees, and evaluates the impact of three key features — gender differences, formal equal opportunities policies and trade union recognition. The analysis reveals that ethnic minority men and women receive poorer treatment than their white counterparts. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that ethnic minority women receive poorer treatment than ethnic minority men. Equal opportunities policies are effective in ensuring equal treatment, but the presence of a recognised trade union is not. White men and women in unionised workplaces enjoy better treatment than their white counterparts in non-union workplaces, but the same is not true for ethnic minorities. By contrast, there is very little evidence of unequal treatment in non-union workplaces.

The Framework Directive for equal treatment in employment adopted in November 2000 by the Council of Ministers marks an important event for the millions of lesbians and gay men within the European Union. It follows hard on the heels of the successful lobbying to have "sexual orientation" included within an anti-discrimination article inserted into the Community treaties by the Treaty of Amsterdam, as part of the development of European citizenship.

How should legislatures respond to requests from religious individuals or institutions for exemptions to generally applicable laws? In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not require legislatures (federal or state) to honor such requests. The question remains whether they should do so on a voluntary basis. This is the problem of permissive accommodation-that is, accommodation of religious liberty as a matter of political discretion rather than constitutional compulsion. Put in the terms of this Symposium, it is the problem of accommodation in the public square. It is not immediately apparent why permissive accommodation presents any problem at all. Because permissive accommodation is not mandatory, it does not raise the knotty issue of determining when legislatures must grant exemptions requests. Legislatures always may deny requests for permissive accommodation, but when they do grant such requests, they further a fundamental constitutional commitment to religious liberty by minimizing governmental interference with religious exercise. Why not simply encourage legislatures to grant requests for permissive accommodation to the greatest extent possible? The problem occurs when legislatures protect religious liberty in a manner that compromises another fundamental constitutional commitment-equality. If left to their own devices, legislatures might well grant exemptions for religious claimants while denying comparable treatment to nonreligious claimants. They might even grant an exemption to one religious sect while denying comparable treatment to other sects. In either case, the legislatures implicate themselves in the unconstitutional establishment of religion.

This article reviews the current state of domestic partner benefits offered by unions to their employees. It explores the institutional homophobia in the labor movement today and how it relates to treatment of gay and nonmarried union employees with domestic partners. Its thesis is that unions that intend to gain equal treatment for their members are better prepared to do so if they can hold themselves up as model employers.