期刊文献+

美国工作场所性骚扰雇主民事责任之研究 被引量:7

Civil Liabilities of the Employer for Sexual Harassment in Workplace in the USA
下载PDF
导出
摘要 工作场所性骚扰在美国被认为是性别歧视行为和对妇女平等工作、就业权的侵害行为,包括交换利益性骚扰和敌意工作环境性骚扰两种形式。对于交换利益性骚扰,雇主应承担严格责任;对于敌意工作环境性骚扰,应根据性骚扰者属管理者或职员的不同身份,适用不同的归责原则,但雇主得以自己无过错而提出抗辩。美国联邦法院通过合理的证据规则、专家证人制度以及惩罚性赔偿制度的运用,更有利于对受害人的保护。 Sexual harassment in the workplace is deemed as a conduct of sexual discrimination and encroachment on women's rights to equal employment and work. It includes harassment by promise of favors and hostile harassment in the workplace. For sexual harassment by promise of favors the employer should bear strict liability. For hostile sexual harassment in workplace, different principles of burden- determination apply in accordance with the harasser's status. That differs from a manager to a staff member, while the employer may plead not guilty. By application of reasonable rules of evidence, establishment of the system of expert witness and the system of punitive restitution, the U.S. federal courts endeavor hard to protect the interests of victims.
作者 熊进光
机构地区 西南政法大学
出处 《西南政法大学学报》 2004年第6期99-104,共6页 Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law
关键词 性骚扰 雇主 惩罚性赔偿制度 抗辩 就业权 侵害行为 专家证人制度 利益性 工作环境 美国 workplace sexual harassments the employer's civil liability damages
  • 相关文献

参考文献18

  • 1[1]Catharine A.Mackinnon,Sexual Harassment of Working Women:A Case for Sex Discrimination 172-173(1979).
  • 2管斌.工作场所性骚扰的法律思考[J].律师世界,2003,0(8):4-8. 被引量:6
  • 3焦兴铠.美国法院对工作场所性骚扰判决之发展趋势[J].台大法学论丛,1999,(3):37.
  • 4[7]641 F.2d 934 (D.C.Cir.1981).
  • 5[8]682 F.2d 897(I I th Cir.1982).
  • 6高凤仙.性骚扰之行为人与雇佣人民事赔偿责任分析(下)[J].万国法律,2002,(12):106.
  • 7[11]甘露.美国传真:性骚扰在美国[EB/OL].http:∥www.sina.com.cn 2003-06-19.
  • 8[12]924 F.2d 872(9th Cir.1991);760 F.Supp.1486(M.D.Fla.1991).
  • 9[13]114 S.Ct. 367(1993).
  • 10俞慧君.各国对工作场所性骚扰之法律规范[J].法学丛刊,2002,(2):82-83.

二级参考文献62

  • 1《牛津法律大辞典》.光明日报出版社1998年版.
  • 2Wils. K.B. 205, 95 Eng. R.ep. 768 (C.P. 1763).
  • 3Genay v. Norris ,1 S.C.L. 3,1 Bay6 (1784).
  • 4Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757, 174 Cat. Rptr. 348 (1981).
  • 5Malzof v. Uited States, 112 S.Ct.711,715(1992).
  • 6Michael Rustad & Thomas Koenig, The Supreme Court and Junk Social Science : Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs , 72 N.C.L. Rev. 91 (1993).
  • 7Stephen Daniels & Joanne Martin, Myth a' nd Reality in Punitive Damages, 75 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 31 (1990).
  • 8Richard L. Abel,The Real Tort Crisis - Too Few Claims,48 Ohio St. L.J. 443, 459 (1987).
  • 9Thomas A. Eaton & Susette M.Talarico,A Profile of Tort Litigation in Georgia and Reflections on Tort Reform,30 Ga.L.Rev. 627,667 (1996).
  • 10Mark A. Hoffman, Punitive Awards common in Financial Cases, Bus. Ins., June 23, 1997, at 36.

共引文献401

同被引文献71

引证文献7

二级引证文献60

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部