Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"While discrimination in the workplace is often perceived to be undertaken at the hands of individual or 'rogue' employees acting against the better interest of their employers, the truth is often the opposite: organizations are inciting discrimination through the work environments that they create. Worse, the law increasingly ignores this reality and exacerbates the problem. In this groundbreaking book, Tristin K. Green describes the process of discrimination laundering, showing how judges are changing the law to protect employers, and why. By bringing organizations back into the discussion of discrimination, with real-world stories and extensive social-science research, Green shows how organizational and legal efforts to minimize discrimination - usually by policing individuals over broader organizational change - are taking us in the wrong direction, and how the law could do better, by creating incentives for organizational efforts that are likely to minimize discrimination, instead of inciting it\"-- Provided by publisher.

Globalisation, the shift from manufacturing to services as a source of employment, and the spread of information-based systems and technologies have given birth to a new economy, which emphasises flexibility in the labour market and in employment relations. These changes have led to the erosion of the standard (industrial) employment relationship and an increase in precarious work - work which is poorly paid and insecure. Women perform a disproportionate amount of precarious work. This collection of original essays by leading scholars on labour law and women's work explores the relationship between precarious work and gender, and evaluates the extent to which the growth and spread of precarious work challenges traditional norms of labour law and conventional forms of legal regulation.The book provides a comparative perspective by furnishing case studies from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Quebec, Sweden, the UK, and the US, as well as the international and supranational context through essays that focus on the IMF, the ILO, and the EU. Common themes and concepts thread throughout the essays, which grapple with the legal and public policy challenges posed by women's precarious work.

\"Do the United States and France, both post-industrial democracies, differ in their views and laws concerning discrimination? Marie Mercat-Bruns, a Franco-American scholar, examines the differences in how the two countries approach discrimination. Bringing together prominent legal scholars--including Robert Post, Linda Krieger, Martha Minow, Reva Siegel, Susan Sturm, Richard Ford, and others--Mercat-Bruns demonstrates how the two nations have adopted divergent strategies. The United States continues, with mixed success at \"colorblind\" policies, to deal with issues of diversity in university enrollment, class action sex-discrimination lawsuits, and rampant police violence against African American men and women. In France, the country has banned the full-face veil while making efforts to present itself as a secular republic. Young men and women whose parents and grandparents came from sub-Sahara and North Africa are stuck coping with a society that fails to take into account the barriers to employment and education they face. Discrimination at Work provides an incisive comparative analysis of how the nature of discrimination in both countries has changed, now often hidden, or steeped in deep unconscious bias. While it is rare for employers in both countries to openly discriminate, deep systemic discrimination exists, rooted in structural and environmental causes and the ways each state has dealt with difference in general. Invigorating and incisive, the book examines hot-button issues of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and equality for LGBT individuals, delivering comparisons meant to further social equality and fundamental human rights across borders\"--Provided by publisher.

The complex and changing state of policy protections for transgender communities practically requires trans people to become legal experts just to navigate their everyday lives. It also simultaneously offers a window of opportunity for legal advocates to shape new laws and policies based on the lived experiences of trans people. Using personal interviews, legal case histories, and transgender theory, Transgender Employment Experiences combines policy analysis with the lived experiences of twenty transgender-identified employees, showing how worker protections that should exist under the Civil Rights Act are instead systematically undermined in the case of many transgender employees. Rather than focusing solely on negative experiences, however, Kyla Bender-Baird also highlights the positive experiences her respondents had coming out at work, illustrating examples of best practices in response to transitioning. Bender-Baird covers many forms of discrimination that transgender workers face, such as harassment, gender-based dress codes, income-related inequities, bathroom policies, and background checks. Drawing from this analysis, she argues for protections for gender expression in policy decisions, legislative efforts, and for a multipronged approach to workplace discrimination. With its effective balance of personal stories and legal guidance, this book is a much-needed resource for those in the field of gender and employment, from policy analysts to human resource managers to queer studies scholars.

Many mental health service users delay or avoid disclosing their condition to employers because of experience, or anticipation, of discrimination. However, non-disclosure precludes the ability to request 'reasonable adjustments'. There have been no intervention studies to support decision-making about disclosure to an employer. To determine whether the decision aid has an effect that is sustained beyond its immediate impact; to determine whether a large-scale trial is feasible; and to optimise the designs of a larger trial and of the decision aid. In this exploratory randomised controlled trial (RCT) in London, participants were randomly assigned to use of a decision aid plus usual care or usual care alone. Follow-up was at 3 months. Primary outcomes were: (a) stage of decision-making; (b) decisional conflict; and (c) employment-related outcomes (trial registration number: NCT01379014). We recruited 80 participants and interventions were completed for 36 out of 40 in the intervention group; in total 71 participants were followed up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that reduction in decisional conflict was significantly greater in the intervention group than among controls (mean improvement -22.7 (s.d. = 15.2) v. -11.2 (s.d. = 18.1), P = 0.005). More of the intervention group than controls were in full-time employment at follow-up (P = 0.03). The observed reduction in decisional conflict regarding disclosure has a number of potential benefits which next need to be tested in a definitive trial.

Objective: To assess the public support for potential legislation to prohibit weight-based discrimination against obese individuals in the United States, and to examine whether certain message frames about weight discrimination influence public support. Design: Participants were randomly assigned to read one of the four paragraphs that framed the topic of weight discrimination in a distinct way (or a control condition with no paragraph). Participants were then asked to indicate their level of support for six antidiscrimination laws. Subjects: A national sample of 1114 participants (48% women, 52% men), mean age 44.78 years (s.d.=15.93). Results: There was moderate support for several laws to prohibit weight-based discrimination, but gender differences were observed across experimental conditions indicating that some message frames may increase support for certain laws among women, but not men. However, message frames had no effect on support for laws with specific provisions to prohibit weight discrimination in the workplace, suggesting that public support for these particular legal measures is consistent and high (65% of men and 81% of women expressed support) regardless of how the issue of weight discrimination is framed to the public. Conclusion: The present findings provide evidence of current levels of public support for legislation to prohibit weight-based discrimination, and offer potential ways for policy makers and interest groups to communicate messages about weight discrimination in efforts to increase support.

Background The UK Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for employers to ask health questions before making an offer of employment except in certain circumstances. While the majority of employers would prefer applicants to disclose a mental illness at the application stage, many people either wait until they have accepted the job and then disclose to an occupational health professional, or do not do so at all due to the anticipation of discrimination or a wish for privacy. However, non disclosure precludes the ability to request reasonable adjustments in the workplace or to make a claim of direct discrimination. Disclosure to employers is therefore a difficult decision. A recent pilot study by our group of the CORAL decision aid showed that it helped mental health service users clarify their needs and values regarding disclosure and led to reduction in decisional conflict. The present proof of concept trial aims to determine whether a full scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) is justifiable and feasible, and to optimise its design. Methods In this single blind exploratory RCT in London, a total of 80 participants (inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years, on the caseload of a specialist employment adviser working with people with mental illness; referred to the adviser either from primary care via Improving Access to Psychological Therapies or secondary mental health service; currently seeking or interested in either paid or voluntary employment, and a Decisional Conflict Scale score of 37.5 or greater and stage of decision score 1–5) will be recruited from vocational advice services. After completing a baseline assessment, participants will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions (1) Use of the CORAL Decision Aid (DA) in addition to treatment as usual or (2) Treatment as usual. Those allocated to the DA condition will be given it to read and complete, and the researcher will be present to record the time taken and any content that causes confusion. Intervention participants may keep the decision aid but are discouraged from showing it to other service users to avoid contamination. Follow up interviews will be conducted at 3 months. Primary outcomes are: (i) stage of decision making score; (ii) decisional conflict scores and (iii) employment related outcomes. Secondary analyses will identify predictors of disclosure and qualitative analysis will explore the impact of the intervention. Discussion A reduction in decisional conflict regarding disclosure leading to more effective job seeking activity could have significant economic consequences for people with mental illness in terms of employment rates and productivity. Trial registration number NCT01379014 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier)