Structural Reform in America: understanding it through discrimination cases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53798/suprema.2024.v4.n2.a327Palavras-chave:
Structural reform, United States of America, Supreme Court, discrimination, workplaceResumo
This paper delves into the conceptual aspects of structural reform in the United States and its application in discrimination cases. Such reform requires a prolonged and adaptable process to align with legal standards and dismantle inadequate structures fostering unlawful practices. Notably, structural reform involves multiple actors, diverging from the exclusive role of the Judiciary in problem resolution. The paper explores the roots of structural reform in the United States through literature review and case analysis, such as Brown I and Brown II, to understand how legal issues were adjudicated and whether the Supreme Court's rulings triggered broader societal changes. The discussion extends to cases of structural reform in employment discrimination, indicating successful instances but also setbacks, exemplified by a Supreme Court case on gender discrimination at Walmart.
Downloads
Referências
ALBISTON, Catherine R. Structure, Agency, and Working Law. Law & Social Inquiry. Vol. 44, Issue 4, 1221-1230, 2019.
BURNHAM, W.; REED, Stephen F. Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States. 7ed. St. Paul: West Academic Publishing, 2021, 1366 p.
CARROLL, Maureen. Class Action Myopia, 65 Duke L.J. 843, 2016.
CUMMINGS, Scott L. Rethinking the foundational critiques of lawyers in social movements (Colloquium: Civil Litigation Ethics at a Time of Vanishing Trials). Fordham Law Review, Vol. 85, Issue 5 (April 2017), pp. 1987-2016, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/39p3h3w5. Accessed on 25 Jan. 2024.
DONALD, David Herbert. Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man. New York: Random House, 1970, 595p.
FAUST, Drew Gilpin. Death and Dying. U.S. National Park Service – U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/death.html#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20soldiers%20who,and%20the%20Korean%20War%2C%20combined. Accessed on 12 Feb. 2024.
FERNANDES, João Renda Leal. O “Mito EUA”: um país sem Direitos Trabalhistas?. 2. Ed. São Paulo: Juspodivm, 2023, p. 59-61.
FISS, Owen. The civil rights injunction. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press, 1978, 117p.
FONER, Eric. Reconstruction: United States history. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2024. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Reconstruction-United-States-history. Accessed on 16 Feb. 2024.
FUNCK, Flávia Bornéo. Direitos Individuais Homogêneos: elementos para uma definição em dois planos. Passo Fundo: conhecer, 2023, 252p.
GIDI, Antonio. A Class Action como Instrumento de Tutela Coletiva dos Direitos: as ações coletivas em uma perspectiva comparada. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2007. 525 p.
GILL, Ann M. The Supreme Court’s Rhetoric of Legitimization. In ROUNTREE, Clarke. Brown v. Board of education at fifty: a rhetorical perspective. Oxford: Lexington Books, 2004.
OGLETREE, Charles J. All deliberate speed: reflections on the first half-century of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2005.
MALVEAUX, Suzette M. The Modern Class Action Rule: Its Civil Rights Roots and Relevance Today, 6 U. Kan. L.Rev. 325, 2017.
MARCUS, David. The Public Interest Class Action, 104 Geo. L.J. 777, 2016.
UROFSKY, Melvin I. Dred Scott decision. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2024. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision. Last accessed on Feb. 2nd, 2024.
ROSENBERG, Gerald N. The hollow hope can courts bring about social change? 3. Ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2023, 713p.
ROSENBERG, G. Tilting at Windmills: Brown II and the hopeless quest to resolve deep-seated social conflict through litigation. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, Issue 1, 2006. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2921&context=journal_articles. Accessed on: 25 Jan. 2024.
STONE, Geoffrey R; SEIDMAN Jessica C.; SEIDMAN, Andrew R.; SUNSTEIN, Cass r.; TUSHNET, Mark; KARLAN, Pamela; TUSHNET, Rebecca and Laura. Constitutional Law. 8ed. Frederick: Wolters Kluwer, 2017.
STURM, Susan. Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A structural Approach. Columbia Law Review. 101, 458, 2001.
U.S. Rules Enabling Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2071-2077. Washington: June 19, 1934.
VIOLIN, Jordão. Processos estruturais em perspectiva comparada: a experiência norte-americana na resolução de litígios policêntricos. Tese (Doutorado em Direito) – Programa de Pós-graduação em Direito, Universidade Federal do Paraná. Curitiba, 2019.
VITORELLI, Edilson. Processo estrutural: teoria e prática. 5ed. São Paulo: Editora JusPodivm, 2024.
VITORELLI, Edilson. Levando os conceitos a sério: processo estrutural, processo coletivo, processo estratégico e suas diferenças. Revista de Processo, São Paulo, v. 284, p. 333-369, out. 2018.
WOODWARD, C. Vann. The strange career of Jim Crow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 272 p.
Cases list
U.S. Supreme Court. Butchers' Benevolent Assn. of New Orleans v. Crescent City Livestock Landing & Slaughterhouse Co. 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873).
U.S. Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
U.S. Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
U.S. Supreme Court. Cooper v. Aaron. United States Supreme Court. 358 U.S. 1 (1958).
U.S. Supreme Court. Dred Scott v. Sandford. United States Supreme Court. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).
U.S. Supreme Court. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 137 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Griffin v. County School Board. 363 F.2d 206, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 960 (1966).
U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison, United States Supreme Court, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).
U.S. Supreme Court. McCulloch v. Maryland. United States Supreme Court. 4 L. Ed. 579, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).
U.S. Supreme Court. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
U.S. Supreme Court. The Civil Rights Cases: United States v. Stanley 109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883).
U.S. Supreme Court. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al. 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2550 (2011).
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Hermano Domingues, Ricardo José Macêdo de Britto Pereira
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
