差別影響歧視理論適用之爭議--以美國聯邦最高法院Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc.案為探討核心_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料

題名：	差別影響歧視理論適用之爭議--以美國聯邦最高法院Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc.案為探討核心
書刊名：	國立中正大學法學集刊
作者：	許炳華
作者(外文)：	Hsu, Pin-hua
出版日期：	2017
卷期：	54
頁次：	頁57-114
主題關鍵詞：	差別影響歧視；差別對待歧視；間接歧視；平等保護；公平住居；住居隔離；嚴格審查標準；Disparate impact；Disparate treatment；Indirect discrimination；Equal protection；Fair Housing；Segregated housing；Strict scrutiny
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:57 點閱:8

美國在21世紀已經邁向地域移動彈性化及種族多元化，然矛盾的是，黑人貧民區仍被隔離而成為都會區之景觀，根據2010年之統計，儘管多元化全面提升，惟極端之黑白種族隔離仍舊存在，在這個背景下，聯邦昀高法院在 2015年6月25日作出Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc.案，使得公平住居之擁護者大大鬆了一口氣，該令人意想不到之判決對於民權運動者亦屬一大勝利， Inclusive Communities案絕非僅深刻影響數百萬美國人之住居選擇，更可能形塑其未來之社區結構，以五比四些微差距之多數意見認為基於公平住居法得以主張差別影響歧視理論，該理論對於公平住居之促進乃至關重要之工具，使得在對於損害少數族群之政府行為提起訴訟時，無須證明特定之歧視意圖，數十年來，差別影響歧視責任在美國成為確保憲法所承諾所有人平等之關鍵工具，許多法律及行政措施在表面上看起來中立，但實際上卻使特定族群受到不利益之影響，本文爬梳 Inclusive Communities案之脈絡，將論述焦點放在依據公平住居法得否主張差別影響歧視、差別影響歧視理論與平等保護條款之關係，昀後反思我國之司法及立法實務，期能提供探討以作為借鏡。

以文找文

American in the twenty-first century has become increasingly geographically mobile and ethically diverse. Yet, paradoxically, black ghettos-spatially isolated that are predominantly black-remain central features of American metropolitan landscape. The results of the 2010 census indicate that, while diversity has increased overall, extreme black-white segregation persists. On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc. case. And fair housing advocates breathed a sigh of relief. The unexpected ruling is a triumph for civil rights activists also. The decision in this case will not only profoundly impact the housing choices of millions of Americans of all backgrounds but it will also shape the fabric of the neighborhoods and communities. Disparate impact theory is a vital tool for fair housing advocates. It allows them to challenge institutional behaviors that harm minority groups, without having to go through the often impossible process of identifying explicitly discriminatory motives. For decades, disparate impact liability has been a critical tool in ensuring that the Constitution’s promise of equality extends to all persons regardless of race. This article analyze Inclusive Communities case, put stress on that whether disparate-impact claims were cognizable under Fair Housing Act and the relations between disparate impact theory and equal protection clause. Hope to gain something for us to learn.

以文找文

期刊論文
1.	廖元豪(20081000)。移民--基本人權的化外之民：檢視批判「移民無人權」的憲法論述與實務。月旦法學，161，83-104。延伸查詢
2.	鄭川如(20130700)。「原住民身分法」中「姓氏綁身分」條款的違憲分析。國立中正大學法學集刊，40，1-40。延伸查詢
3.	施正鋒(20110300)。從權利保障探討平埔族原住民族身分被剝奪。臺灣國際法季刊，8(1)，7-38。延伸查詢
4.	侯岳宏(20140900)。性別工作平等法判決之回顧與展望。月旦法學，232，114-132。延伸查詢
5.	林更盛(20140800)。何去何從的年齡間接歧視--最高行政法院一○一年度判字第一○三六號判決評析。月旦裁判時報，28，18-28。延伸查詢
6.	謝棋楠(20080400)。由美國差別影響歧視制度評臺北地院九十一年重勞訴字第五號判決。全國律師，12(4)，14-35。延伸查詢
7.	Aleo, Michael、Svirsky, Pablo、Fallout, Foreclosure(2008)。The Banking Industry's Attack on Disparate Impact Race Discrimination Claims under the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act。Boston University Public Interest Law Journal，18，1-65。
8.	Bell, Abraham、Parchomovsky, Gideon(2000)。The Integration Game。Columbia Law Review，100，1965-2209。
9.	Bonelli, David M.(2003)。If You Build It, They Will Come: Intentional Discrimination and Disparate Impact Theory in Buckeye Community Hope Foundation v. City of CuyahogaFalls--Does a Municipality's Use of Referendum to Block an Approved Housing Project Violate Equal Protection and Title VIII?。Hamline Law Review，26，631-678。
10.	Brumfield, Gregory(2009)。A Closer Look at the Fair Housing Act of 1968: Can the Disparate Impact Theory Affect the Urban Crisis in the City of New Orleans。Southern University Law Review，37(1)，41-63。
11.	Clegg, Roger(2014)。Silver Linings Playbook: Disparate Impact and the Fair Housing Act。Cato Sup. Ct. Review，2014/2015，165-194。
12.	De Leeuw, Michael B.(2008)。The United States' Obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination。Michigan Journal of Race & Law，13，337-388。
13.	Flaschner, Erika(2014)。Settlement Equals Another Missed Opportunity for the Supreme Court to Define Disparate Impact Claims under the Fair Housing Act。The University of Baltimore Journal of Land and Development，3，219-225。
14.	Fuller, William F.(2015)。What's Hud Got to Do with It?: How Hud'S Disparate Impact Rule May Save the Fair Housing Act'S Disparate Impact Standard。Fordham Law Review，83，2047-2089。
15.	Graham, Justin(2013)。A Defense of Gentrification under the Fair Housing Act's Disparate Impact Test。Arizona State Law Journal，45，1719-1759。
16.	Howell, Benjamin(2006)。Exploiting Race and Space: Concentrated Subprime Lending as Housing Discrimination。California Law Review，94(1)，101-147。
17.	Kaersvang, Dana L.(2006)。The Fair Housing Act and Disparate Impact in Homeowners Insurance。Michigan Law Review，104(8)，1993-2018。
18.	Kenn, Deborah(2001)。Institutionalized, Legal Racism: Housing Segregation and Beyond。Boston University Public Interest Law Journal，11，35-72。
19.	Kushner, James A.(2008)。Urban Neighborhood Regeneration and the Phases of Community Evolution After World War II in America。Indiana Law Review，41，575-603。
20.	Johnson, Olatunde C. A.(2014)。The Agency Roots of Disparate Impact。Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review，49，125-154。
21.	Leonard, Geoffrey(2014)。Our Back Yards: Dismantling Segregation by Incentivizing Regional Collaboration under the Fair Housing Act's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Provision。Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y，22，165-188。
22.	Marcus, Kenneth L.(2009)。The War between Disparate Impact and Equal Protection。Cato Sup. Ct. Review，2008/2009，53-83。
23.	McCormick, Marcia(2012)。Disparate Impact and Equal Protection after Ricci v. DeStefano。Wis. J. L. Gender & Soc'y，27，100-131。
24.	McArdle, Andrea(2015)。City of New York: Testing the Limits of Disparate-Impact Liability after Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project。J. Affordable Housing & Community Dev. L.，24，287-303。
25.	McKeen, Myers' Elizabeth、Patel, Bimal、Pavel, Ashley(2015)。Robust Causality and Cautionary Standards: Why the Inclusive Communities Decision, Despite Upholding Disparate-Impact Liability, Establishes New Protections for Defendants。Banking L. J.，132，553-562。
26.	Murray, Cornelius J. IV(2014)。Promoting Inclusive Communities: A Modified Approach to Disparate Impact under the Fair Housing Act。LA Law Review，75，213-256。
27.	Naimon, Jeffrey P.、Jensen, Kirk D.(2012)。The Fair Housing Act, Disparate Impact Claims, and Magner v. Gallagher: An Opportunity to Return to the Primacy of the Statutory Text。Banking L. J.，129，99-132。
28.	Ngov, Eang L.(2010)。War and Peace between Title VII's Disparate Impact Provision and the Equal Protection Clause: Battling for a Compelling Interest。Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal，42，1-88。
29.	Ngov Eang L.(2011)。Will Title Vii's Disparate Impact Provision Be Narrowly Tailored to Survive An Equal Protection Clause Challenge?。American University Law Review，60，535-588。
30.	Oliveri, Rigel C.(2015)。Beyond Disparate Impact: How the Fair Housing Movement Can Move On。Washburn Law Journal，54，625-648。
31.	Oliveri, Rigel C.(2015)。Disparate Impact and Integration: With TDHCA v. Inclusive Communities the Supreme Court Retains an. Uneasy Status Quo。Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Dev. L.，24(2)，267-286。
32.	Powell, John A.(2008)。Reflections on the Past, Looking to the Future: The Fair Housing Act at 40。Indiana Law Review，41，605-627。
33.	Primus, Richard A.(2003)。Equal Protection and Disparate Impact: Round Three。Harvard Law Review，117，493-587。
34.	Primus, Richard(2010)。The Future of Disparate Impact。Michigan Law Review，108，1341-1387。
35.	Rosenow Scott E.(2014)。Heightened Equal-Protection Scrutiny Applies to the Disparate-Impact Doctrine。Tex. J. on C. L. & C. R.，20，163-210。
36.	Rotem, Rebecca Tracy(2010)。Using Disparate Impact Analysis in Fair Housing Act Claims: Landlord Withdrawal From the Section 8 Voucher Program。Fordham Law Review，78，1971-2008。
37.	Rubinowitz, Leonard S.、Shelton, Kathryn(2008)。Non-Violent Direct Action and the Legislative Process: The Chicago Freedom Movement and the Federal Fair Housing Act。Indiana Law Review，41，663-715。
38.	Rutherglen, George(2006)。Disparate Impact, Discrimination, and the Essentially Contested Concept of Equality。Fordham Law Review，74，2313-2338。
39.	Schneider, Valerie(2014)。In Defense of Disparate Impact: Urban Redevelopment and the Supreme Court's Recent Interest in the Fair Housing Act。Mo. L. Review，79，539-576。
40.	Seicshnaydre, Stacy E.(2013)。Is Disparate Impact Having Any Impact? An Appellate Analysis of Forty Years of Disparate Impact Claims under the Fair Housing Act。American University Law Review，63，357-435。
41.	Siegel, Reva B.(2011)。From Colorblindness to Antibalkanization: An Emerging Ground of Decision in Race Equality Cases。Yale Law Journal，120，1278-1366。
42.	Siegel, Reva B.(2015)。Race-Conscious, But Race-Neutral? The Constitutionality of Disparate Impact in the Roberts Court。Ala. L. Review，66，653-689。
43.	Williams, Michael(2013)。Why Relaxed Strict Scrutiny Should Apply When Congress Uses Its Section Five Enforcement Power to Prevent Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment。Mississippi Law Journal Supra，82，17-52。
44.	Cochran, Matthew Jordan(2016)。Fairness in Disparity: Challenging the Application of Disparate Impact Theory in Fair Housing Claims Against Insurers。George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal，21(2)。
45.	黃昭元(20120900)。論差別影響歧視與差別對待歧視的關係--評美國最高法院Ricci v. DeStefano （2009）判決。中研院法學期刊，11，1-63。延伸查詢

會議論文
1.	胡家寧、顏良恭(2008)。我國性別工作平等制度變遷之探討。2008臺灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會暨夥伴關係與永續發展國際學術研討會。延伸查詢

圖書
1.	原住民族委員會(2007)。原住民族住宅問題與政策之研究。延伸查詢
2.	Bagenstos, Samuel R.(2016)。Disparate Impact and the Role of Classification and Motivation in Equal Protection Law after Inclusive Communities。University of Michigan Law School。
3.	Fa, Wencong(2016)。The Trouble with Racial Quotas in Disparate Impact Remedial Orders。

單篇論文
1.	Schwemm, Robert G.，Pratt, Sara K.(2016)。Disparate Impact under the Fair Housing Act: A Proposed Approach，https://ssrn.com/abstract=1577291。

其他
1.	內政部移民署(2008)。97年度陸配及外配生活處遇及權益之研究，http://www.immigration.gov.tw/lp.asp7ctNode=29708&CtUnit= 16501 &BaseDSD=7&mp= 1。延伸查詢

圖書論文
1.	焦興鎧(1995)。美國聯邦最高法院與就業歧視問題。勞工法與勞工權利之保障--美國勞工法論文集。臺北市：月旦出版社。延伸查詢
2.	王玉葉(2012)。美國高等教育優惠待遇何去何從--美國最高法院拒絕審理Hopwood v. Texas案之省思。美國法制研究。延伸查詢

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	工作權是國民權或人權？：從勞動權人權化之辯論與「能力進路」觀點反思工作權之定性
2.	論外籍移工於我國刑事犯罪後之人權保障--自監察院109財調字第31號調查報告談起
3.	原住民身分認定、升學保障與族群認同發展：原漢通婚家庭子女的個案研究
4.	評釋字第791號解釋--從性別身分到平等契約？
5.	原漢通婚家庭中雙裔子女的族群從屬：子代性別與數量的影響
6.	2016年至2018年間性別工作平等法判決之回顧
7.	「媒介公民權」在臺灣：臺灣新住民對專屬族群電視臺之需求與媒體使用行為研究
8.	CEDAW與我國憲法之性別平等保障內涵的比較
9.	職場性騷擾之損害賠償責任：臺日比較法研究
10.	認同的威名：漢父原母子女取得原住民身分的人口研究
11.	變與不變：平埔族群復名復權運動
12.	美國最高法院對就業歧視爭議近期判決之研究(1992~2017年)
13.	教育權利保障改制下兩性原住民人口季節性增加與離群值比較
14.	我國移民融合機制之實際成效與可行對策之研究：從「移民融合政策指標」(MIPEX)之角度開展
15.	從「移民融合政策指標」(MIPEX)探討韓國移民融合機制之現況、成效與對策：兼論對我國之啟示

1.	我國公立國民小學教師待遇制度之研究
2.	美英文官制度雇用政策變革之研究：政策價值的觀點

1.	就業歧視爭議中禁止雇主報復規範在美國之最新發展--聯邦最高法院在Southwest Medical Center v. Nassar一案判決之評析
2.	叫我西拉雅，我是原住民--從復振、認同到正名
3.	平埔族原住民族身分的喪失與回復
4.	兩公約與外國人身體與行動自由之保障
5.	婚姻移民法律地位與權利之分析
6.	歐洲法院與就業上性別歧視爭議之解決
7.	歐洲聯盟兩性工作平等法制之研究
8.	對我國高等行政法院一則就業歧視判決之評析--兼論美國經驗所能提供之啟示
9.	美國女性主義法學者對工作場所性騷擾爭議之批判
10.	工作場所性騷擾被害人在美國尋求救濟途徑之研究
11.	美國雇主對工作場所性騷擾事件之法律責任及預防之道
12.	美國兩性工作平等制度之研究
13.	美國聯邦政府勞資關係制度之最新發展趨勢
14.	論雇主採用「胎兒保護措施」所引起之就業歧視爭議--Johnson Controls一案之分析

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫