Abstract
The Supreme Court has articulated a doctrinal framework that, if construed and applied properly, provides the lower federal courts with the analytical tools necessary to identify and proscribe workplace rules that compel individuals to adhere to appearance, attire, and behavioral norms that operate to reinforce gendered expectations.1 Since the Supreme Court has ruled that penalizing an individual for failing to conform to gendered norms of behavior constitutes a form of sex-based discrimination,2 one would expect that employees would have achieved some measure of success in challenging such policies.
Citation
Joel Wm. Friedman,
Gender Nonconformity and the Unfulfilled Promise of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,
14 Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy
205-228
(2007)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djglp/vol14/iss1/6