English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Professors Brilmayer, Laycock, and Sullivan in their Rejoinder have identified several of the areas on which we disagree.1 At the outset I hope that needless disputation can be avoided by specifying the legal and ethical values on which I believe we agree. The reader, in any event, will have a basis for judging the extent to which we differ about ends, means, and facts. Fundamentally, I believe that: 1. It is ethically wrong in employment-related decisions for an employer to take a person's race, gender, religious preference, political opinions, national origin, marital status, and other personal characteristics and beliefs into account when they are not germane to the job performed or to be performed.2 2. The Equal Pay Act' and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19644 forbid invidious discrimination against individuals who are members of designated groups.5 Furthermore, I agree with Professor Laycock e that the Constitution's prescriptions establish rights for individuals rather than for groups.

the university of chicago law review

Discrimination and Economic Efficiency in Employee Fringe Benefits: A Clarification of Issues and a Response to Professors Brilmayer, Laycock, and Sullivan