{"id":52345,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/joanna-grossman-archive-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"joanna-grossman-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/joanna-grossman-archive-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Joanna Grossman Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Legal Commentary: Joanna Grossman Archive<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n

TRANSSEXUALS, DRESS CODES, AND THE LAW:\n A NEW JERSEY COURT DECISION EMBRACES A BROAD CONCEPT\n\t\t\t\tOF SEX DISCRIMINATION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent New Jersey appellate decision holding \nthat discrimination against transsexuals may constitute both sex discrimination and disability discrimination. Grossman \nanalyzes relevant precedents, including a key Supreme Court decision on what sex discrimination means and a number of \nlower court decisions upholding gender-based dress codes.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jul. 17, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE 2000-2001 SUPREME COURT TERM ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS: A MIXED BAG OF SPLIT DECISIONS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman views the past Supreme Court term from a women’s rights \nperspective, finding both advances for, and blows to, women’s causes. Grossman warns, however, that a single additional \nconservative vote on the Court would have caused women to lose virtually all of the cases affecting their rights this \nTerm, with only two exceptions — making the next Supreme Court Justice nomination battle a women’s rights cause. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jul. 03, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A VICTORY FOR MOTHERHOOD AND FOR SEXISM: THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN NGUYEN V. INS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman challenges the logic of the Supreme Court’s recent holding \nin Nguyen v. INS, which allowed higher standards to be imposed on U.S. citizen-fathers attempting to confer citizenship \non their foreign-born children, than on U.S. citizen-mothers trying to do the same thing.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jun. 18, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHOM CAN TRANSSEXUALS MARRY? AND FROM WHOM CAN THEY INHERIT?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses an unusual trusts and estates case, in which a son \nchallenged his stepmother’s right to share in his late father’s estate. The twist? The son, after finding out that his \nstepmother was a transsexual that had been born male, claimed her marriage to his father was therefore illegal.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jun. 05, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE NEW ABA REPORT ON WOMEN AND LAW: WHY THE SOLUTIONS THE REPORT PROPOSES MAY NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman analyzes the new ABA report on women in the legal \nprofession, and evaluates its suggestions for overcoming the major obstacles that women lawyers faces.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, May. 22, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

THE SUPREME COURT’S RECENT DISPARATE IMPACT CASE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER EQUITY<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses what will happen to the claim of “disparate \nimpact” sex discrimination, after the Supreme Court held in Alexander v. Sandoval that private “disparate impact” \nrace discrimination suits enforcing federal regulations can no longer be brought. Grossman discusses the implications \nfor female school applicants, coaches, and athletes who face discrimination.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, May. 08, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

DISSOLVING UNHAPPY VERMONT CIVIL UNIONS: IT’S HARDER THAN IT LOOKS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman explores a \nlittle-known facet of Vermont’s civil union law. It is well-known that the \nlaw promotes equality by allowing same-sex couples to gain many of the \nbenefits of marriage enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. However, Grossman \nexplains that \nwhile an out-of-state, opposite-sex couple that gets married in Vermont can \nget divorced \nin their home state, an out-of-state, same-sex couple who enters into a \ncivil union in Vermont \nmay find it very difficult to dissolve their union, unless one of them \nbecomes a Vermont \nresident.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Apr. 24, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“EQUAL OPPORTUNITY” HARASSERS: DOES A SEX HARASSER WHO TARGETS BOTH MEN AND WOMEN VIOLATE FEDERAL ANTI- DISCRIMINATION LAW?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a \nrecent Connecticut case, of a fire chief alleged to have sexually harassed both \nmale and female employees. Grossman notes that the case raises a question \nthat has long interested legal academia: Can an alleged “equal opportunity” \nharasser, who is said to harass both genders, be sued under Title VII, the federal anti- \ndiscrimination statute, for discriminating “because of sex”? Or is he exempt from Title \nVII because he discriminates regardless of sex, not because of it? Grossman considers \nthese questions, as well as the scenarious of the bisexual harasser and the same-sex harasser.\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Apr. 10, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

WHY THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE A DUTY TO NOTIFY AND OTHER PROTECTIONS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the limitations of the Family and Medical Leave Act \n(FMLA), which guarantees twelve weeks of unpaid birth, new parenting or medical leave. Grossman explains the recent \ncontroversy among the courts as to whether, as the Department of Labor has stated, employers must tell employees when \ntheir leave is being counted against the FMLA’s twelve-week period, rather than against other type of leave the employer \nalso provides. In addition, Grossman argues that the FMLA should be amended to provide paid leave, and to apply to \nsmaller employers.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Mar. 27, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHAT REMEDY IS PROPER FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses \nPollard v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, the sexual harassment case the Supreme \nCourt will hear next month. Pollard raises the issue of whether the damages \ncap in Title VII (the federal anti-discrimination statute) applies to an \naward of “front pay” — pay the plaintiff would have earned if, after \nwinning her case, she returned to the company at which she had worked. In \naddition to arguing that front pay is not subject to the damages cap, \nGrossman explores several other interesting aspects of the case, including \nthe fact that Pollard suffered sex-based, but not sexual, harassment.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Mar. 13, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n