ImageVerifierCode 换一换
格式:PDF , 页数:3 ,大小:579.27KB ,
资源ID:26790    下载:注册后免费下载
快捷下载
登录下载
邮箱/手机:
温馨提示:
快捷下载时,用户名和密码都是您填写的邮箱或者手机号,方便查询和重复下载(系统自动生成)。 如填写123,账号就是123,密码也是123。
特别说明:
请自助下载,系统不会自动发送文件的哦; 如果您已付费,想二次下载,请登录后访问:我的下载记录
验证码:   换一换

加入VIP,免费下载
 

温馨提示:由于个人手机设置不同,如果发现不能下载,请复制以下地址【https://www.lianhezuozhan.com/docdown/26790.html】到电脑端继续下载(重复下载不扣费)。

已注册用户请登录:
账号:
密码:
验证码:   换一换
  忘记密码?
三方登录: 微信登录  

下载须知

1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。
2: 试题试卷类文档,如果标题没有明确说明有答案则都视为没有答案,请知晓。
3: 文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 本站仅提供交流平台,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。

版权提示 | 免责声明

本文([20171101]LSB10021_联邦机构不同意第七篇是否禁止性取向歧视 .pdf)为本站会员(任我行)主动上传,联参智库仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知联参智库(发送邮件至xuewenjia2014@163.com或直接QQ联系客服),我们立即给予删除!

[20171101]LSB10021_联邦机构不同意第七篇是否禁止性取向歧视 .pdf

1、CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal SidebarLegal Sidebari i Federal Agencies Disagree Whether Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Prohibited by Title VII November 1, 2017 If an employer fires an employee because of sexual orientation, is that a form of unlawful discrim

2、ination “because of sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? After hearing oral argument on September 26, 2017, in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit), sitting en banc, is poised to address this significant legal question against a

3、backdrop of conflicting views from federal courts of appeals and two federal agencies. While Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate “because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” its statutory text does not expressly address “sexual orientation.” In Zarda, the pla

4、intiff argued that Altitude Express violated Title VII when it fired Donald Zarda because of his sexual orientation, after he told a client he was gay. His former employer responded that it fired him because of various complaints by a client. A panel of the Second Circuit held that Zardas Title VII