IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Judicial scrutiny of gender-based employment practices in the criminal justice system

Listed author(s):
  • Nolasco, Claire Angelique R.I.
  • Vaughn, Michael S.
Registered author(s):

    Purpose This article examines employment practices of criminal justice agencies within state and federal court decisions that have interpreted sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.Methods After collecting and analyzing appellate court cases through the LEXIS-NEXIS and WESTLAW databases, the article examines lower state and federal court decisions that have been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court to criminal justice workplaces.Results The findings show that employment practices are valid if the employer can demonstrate: first, the disputed discriminatory action is based on considerations not solely dependent on the plaintiff's gender; and second, such considerations are more than mere pretext, making them justifiable under the circumstances.Conclusions Courts have considered a wide range of employer practices in both law enforcement and corrections agencies at various stages of the employment process, such as hiring, assignment of duties, promotion, discipline, and termination. Title VII is violated when the employers' adverse employment action is motivated by discriminatory intent and is based on gender stereotypes. Even so, employment actions are legal when employers prove their employment actions are not based on sex stereotypes, but are either business-related or justified by "legitimate," "important," or "compelling" interests.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Criminal Justice.

    Volume (Year): 39 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 (March)
    Pages: 106-119

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:39:y::i:2:p:106-119
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:39:y::i:2:p:106-119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.