WEKO3
アイテム
米国における雇用差別訴訟とマネジング・ダイバーシティ ―公共訴訟の視角から―
https://doi.org/10.34356/00000631
https://doi.org/10.34356/00000631bc7cd9a6-b110-4d60-a21c-ede50429a86b
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
米国における雇用差別訴訟とマネジング・ダイバーシティ ―公共訴訟の視角から― (689.9 kB)
|
|
| Item type | 紀要論文 / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2017-03-22 | |||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||
| タイトル | 米国における雇用差別訴訟とマネジング・ダイバーシティ ―公共訴訟の視角から― | |||||||
| 言語 | ||||||||
| 言語 | jpn | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | 公共訴訟 | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | 制度改革訴訟（構造改革訴訟） | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | 司法積極主義 | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | 衡平法（equity） | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | 雇用差別 | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | クラス・アクション訴訟 | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | 公民権法第7 編 | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | 系統的差別取扱い法理 | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | 差別的効果法理 | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | アファーマティブ・アクション（積極的差別是正措置） | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | マネジング・ダイバーシティ | |||||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||||
| 資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||||
| 資源タイプ | departmental bulletin paper | |||||||
| ID登録 | ||||||||
| ID登録 | 10.34356/00000631 | |||||||
| ID登録タイプ | JaLC | |||||||
| 別タイトル | ||||||||
| その他のタイトル | Employment Discrimination Litigation and Managing Diversity in the United States: From the Perspective of Public Law Litigation | |||||||
| 著者 |
野畑, 眞理子
× 野畑, 眞理子
|
|||||||
| 著者別名 | ||||||||
| 識別子Scheme | WEKO | |||||||
| 識別子 | 10026 | |||||||
| 姓名 | Mariko, NOHATA | |||||||
| 抄録 | ||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||||
| 内容記述 | This research explores judicial activism in employment discrimination suits from the perspective of public law litigation, and concludes as follows: First, employment discrimination litigation has had the characteristics of public law litigation. The legislative purpose of Title Ⅶ of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate employment discrimination and realize equal employment opportunity, and the ambiguous definitions of principal concepts of Title Ⅶ by Congress have often led the court to judicial activism, which often plays not only a judiciary role but also legislative and administrative ones. Second, focusing on systemic disparate treatment theory, voluntary affirmative action, and disparate impact theory, which have made significant impacts on elimination of employment discrimination, the research verified judicial activism of the court. Judges have decided for protecting people’s civil rights, ordered affirmative actions with goals and timetables, judged affirmative action being constitutional and not violating Title Ⅶ, and directly or indirectly monitored for implementations of decrees or consent decrees. Judicial activism has strongly promoted to abolish job segregation by race and gender that is the root of employment discrimination, and supported EEOC and OFCCP and naturally collaborated with them to make legislative purpose of Title Ⅶ come true. Third, judicial activism has been progressing since the 1990s, introducing, although implementation is insufficient, managing diversity―pursuing diversity and inclusion in the workplace beyond legal compliance―to consent decrees. | |||||||
| 出版者 | ||||||||
| 出版者 | 都留文科大学大学院 | |||||||
| 書誌情報 |
都留文科大学大学院紀要 en : 都留文科大学大学院紀要 号 21, p. 11-37, 発行日 2017-03-19 |
|||||||
| ISSN | ||||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | ISSN | |||||||
| 収録物識別子 | 1880-1439 | |||||||
| NCID | ||||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | NCID | |||||||
| 収録物識別子 | AA11162950 | |||||||
| 著者版フラグ | ||||||||
| 出版タイプ | VoR | |||||||
| 出版タイプResource | http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 | |||||||
