z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Private Nurses and Playboy Bunnies: Explaining Permissible Sex Discrimination
Author(s) -
Kim Yuracko
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
california law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1942-6542
pISSN - 0008-1221
DOI - 10.15779/z38z12w
Subject(s) - hierarchy , employment discrimination , rhetoric , law and economics , political science , business , sociology , social psychology , law , psychology , linguistics , philosophy
Discrimination on the basis of sex in employment is illegal--usually. In cases in which employers contend that sex-based hiring is necessary to protect the privacy interests of their customer, however, and in cases in which employers contend that sex-based hiring is necessary to provide a particular type of sexual titillation for their customers, courts sometimes do allow employers to discriminate. Courts say that they allow sex discrimination in employment when it is necessary to preserve the "essence of the business." This Article shows, however, that there is no plausible conception of business "essence" that can explain and make sense of the existing case law. The Article therefore looks beyond the courts' rhetoric to explain and defend why courts distinguish in the ways they do between permissible and impermissible sex discrimination in employment.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom