臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：美國最高法院對工作場所性騷擾爭議之最新判決：Crawford v. Nashville一案之評析
書刊名：歐美研究
作者：焦興鎧
作者(外文)：Chiao, Cing-kae
出版日期：2013
卷期：43:2
頁次：頁255-304
主題關鍵詞：1964年民權法第七章；工作場所性騷擾；雇主法律責任；禁止報復條款；內部申訴機制；Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964；Sexual harassment in the workplace；Employer liability；Anti-retaliation provision；Internal complaint system
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(5) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:57
  • 點閱點閱:61
本文之目的，是希望由對美國最高法院在Crawford v. Nashville一案之判決，對1964年民權法第七章之禁止報復條款作一整體之說明，並根據學術及實務界對該院此一判決結果所做之評析，來探討此一判決之優劣得失及所未能解決之爭議。此外，由於我國目前根據性別工作平等法所建構之防治工作場所性騷擾法制，大體上是師法美國之做法，加重雇主在這方面預防及處理上法律責任，且亦設有免遭報復之條款，因此，對美國經驗所能提供之啟示，亦將一併加以討論，俾便讓雇主在處理此類勞資爭議時，亦得以有所遵循。
The purpose of this paper is to give a comprehensive overview of an important decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009, which concerns employer liability in combating sexual harassment in the workplace. In Crawford v. Nashville, the Court attempts to clarify several controversies arising from the implementation of the anti- retaliation provision contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This paper also analyzes the merits and shortcomings of the de-cision, in addition to several unresolved issues in its aftermath. Fur-thermore, since Taiwan’s Gender Equality in Employment Act of 2002 follows the U.S. model of setting up an anti-retaliation regime in that Act to impose a similar obligation on employers when handling this type of dispute in their work places, this paper also discusses whether the American experience can provide any guidance for Tai-wan to deter its local employers from adopting any retaliatory meas-ures when they are processing these disputes.
期刊論文
1.Brake, Deborah L.(2005)。Retaliation。Minnesota Law Review，90(1)，18-105。  new window
2.Chamallas, M.(2004)。Title VII’s midlife crisis: The case of constructive discharge。Southern California Law Review，77(2)，307-396。  new window
3.Crabtree, S.、Stock, D.(2010)。Notes, the 45th anniversary of Title VII: Where we are, where we’ve been, and where we may go。Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal，27(2)，433-466。  new window
4.Dau-Schmidt, K. G.、Dvorak, T.(2010)。Review of labor and employment decisions from the United States Supreme Court’s 2008-2009 term。ABA Journal of Labor and Employment Law，25(2)，107-158。  new window
5.Feeney, J. J.(2010)。An inevitable progression in the scope of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision: Third-party retaliation claims。Capital University Law Review，38(3)，43-671。  new window
6.Franklin, D. L.(2009)。What kind of business-friendly court? Explaining the chamber of commerce’s success at the Roberts Court。Santa Clara Law Review，49(4)，1019-1062。  new window
7.Harris, D. P.、Garrie, D. B.、Armstrong, M. J.(2005)。Sexual harassment: Limiting the affirmative defense in the digital work-place。University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform，39(1)，73-97。  new window
8.Hendricks, E.(2006)。The Supreme Court gets constructive: A case note on Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders。Saint Louis University Law Journal，50(4)，1243-1288。  new window
9.Kline, Barbara S.(2009)。Comment, "oppose" by any other name: The Title VII opposition clause and Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee。Oklahoma City University Law Review，34(3)，591-608。  new window
10.LaPointe, Martin K.(2008)。The Supreme Court broadens the expansion of retaliation claims: CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries and Go-mez-Perez v. Potter。Labor Law Journal，59(4)，318-330。  new window
11.Mago, V. K.、Sasser, N. B.、Perry, A. M.(2009)。Labor and employment law。University of Richmond Law Review，44(1)，513-552。  new window
12.Mota, Sue Ann、Waldman, Erin E.(2010)。Employers beware: Retaliation prohibited by the Court in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, and Gomez-Perez v. Potter。Hamline Law Review，33(1)，1-18。  new window
13.Mowrey, Megan E.(2009)。Discriminatory retaliation: Title VII protection for the cooperating employee。Pace Law Review，29(4)，689-737。  new window
14.Oderda, G.(2010)。Opposition at the water cooler: The treatment of non-purposive conduct under Title VII’s anti-retaliation clause。Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy，17(1)，241-257。  new window
15.Watral, D. M.(2010)。When “no” is not enough: The express rejection of sexual advances under Title VII。University of Chicago Law Review，77(1)，521-550。  new window
16.Winslow, N. W.(2009)。When just saying “no” is not enough: How an employee who rejects a supervisor’s sexual advances may not be protected from retaliation-And what the Supreme Court can do about it。California Western Law Review，46(1)，211-240。  new window
17.Zimmer, Michael J.(2009)。A pro-employee Supreme Court?: The retaliation decisions。South Carolina Law Review，60(4)，918-957。  new window
18.焦興鎧(20030600)。工作場所規範之最新發展趨勢--美國之經驗。萬國法律，129，83-94。  延伸查詢new window
19.焦興鎧(20070600)。我國校園性騷擾防治機制之建構--性別平等教育法相關條文之剖析。臺北大學法學論叢，62，41-90。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.Estrich, Susan(1991)。Sex at Work。Stanford Law Review，43(4)，813-861。  new window
21.焦興鎧(19971200)。美國雇主對工作場所性騷擾事件之法律責任及預防之道。歐美研究，27(4)，85-197。new window  延伸查詢new window
22.焦興鎧(20030900)。工作場所同性間性騷擾所引起之爭議：Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.一案判決之評析。歐美研究，33(3)，541-598。new window  延伸查詢new window
23.焦興鎧(20060500)。我國防治性騷擾法制之建構。法令月刊，57(5)，4-27。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.侯岳宏(20121012)。從法院判決解析雇主防制職場性騷擾責任之實務探討。臺北市政府防制就業歧視暨杜絕職場性騷擾專題論壇。臺北：行政院勞工委員會與臺北市政府勞工局。  延伸查詢new window
2.焦興鎧(20121122)。雇主對職場性騷擾之防治義務--對最高行政法院98年度第2802號裁定之評析。101年度勞動法重要判決評釋學術研討會。臺北：國立臺北大學法律學院。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.焦興鎧(1997)。勞工法制之最新發展趨勢--美國勞工法論文集（二）。臺北：月旦。  延伸查詢new window
2.焦興鎧(2001)。勞工法論叢（二）。臺北市：元照出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.焦興鎧(2003)。性騷擾爭議新論。臺北市：元照出版公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.(1958)。Webster's new international dictionary。Massachusetts：Springfield, MA：Merriam Company：G. & C. Merriam。  new window
5.(1987)。The Random House Dictionary of the English Language。NJ。  new window
其他
1.U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission。Charge statistics FY 1997 through FY 2012，http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm， 2013/04/10。  new window
圖書論文
1.焦興鎧(2011)。美國最高法院對工作場所性騷擾事件雇主法律責任範圍之最新判決--Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders一案之評析。美國最高法院重要判決之研究：2004-2006。臺北：中央研究院歐美研究所。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1119（臺灣：1110，外國：9） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1827278 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67626369
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上