In the week 4 lecture, we introduced some of the key work from Kimberle Crenshaw, a black feminist legal scholar from the United States. In her 1989 article "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics" (University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article 8), she discusses the legal case of Degraffenreid v General Motors (1976). Why was no discrimination able to be found in the case by the judge?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Intersectionality as a legal critique explains why the court could not find discrimination: the law treated race and sex as separate, mutually exclusive categories rather than recognizing combined, “race-and-sex” harms. Kimberlé Crenshaw used Degraffenreid v. General Motors (1976) to show how this single-axis framework leaves Black women legally unprotected.

Relevant knowledge points:
- Title VII (antidiscrimination law) recognizes discrimination on grounds such as race and sex, but historically courts analyzed those grounds separately.
- Crenshaw’s intersectionality argument: people who occupy multiple subordinated identities (e.g., Black women) can suffer distinct harms not captured by claims that isolate one axis.
- In Degraffenreid, Black women plaintiffs alleged that a seniority/rehiring policy disproportionately excluded Black women specifically.

Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Facts: Black women claimed GM’s employment practices (seniority/recall policies) disproportionately harmed them as Black women.
2. Legal approach: The court required plaintiffs to show discrimination either on the basis of sex alone or race alone—there was no recognized legal category for “Black women” as a discrete protected class.
3. Application: The court found that white women had been hired (undermining a pure sex-discrimination claim) and that Black men were not shown to be similarly affected in a way that established a pure race-based class claim. Because the plaintiffs’ injury was the specific intersectional exclusion of Black women, it did not fit the court’s separate-race-or-sex framework.
4. Outcome: The judge therefore concluded no actionable discrimination under the existing single-axis doctrinal structure.

Why the correct answers fit:
- “There were no legal protections for black women” captures the core: the law did not recognize an intersectional category for the combined harm.
- “There were no protections on the basis of race, only on the basis of sex” reflects how the court parsed claims into single axes (effectively evaluating sex claims in isolation and failing to treat race+sex together), leading to dismissal.

Why the other options are incorrect:
- “There were no legal protections for women being fired” is false because antidiscrimination law did protect sex discrimination, but the specific intersectional harm was not recognized.
- “The plaintiffs withdrew their case…” is incorrect; the case was decided on the merits of the legal theory, not withdrawn.

Conclusion: The court’s refusal to recognize intersectional discrimination—treating race and sex separately—meant no discrimination could be legally found, confirming the provided answers.

类似问题

Olly applies for a job with Petro Company. Petro does not hire Olly because of his national origin. This is

A project has a required return of 12.6 percent, an initial cash outflow of $42,100, and cash inflows of $16,500 in Year 1, $11,700 in Year 2, and $10,400 in Year 4. What is the net present value?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单