Place Aux Dames: The Ideological Divide between U.S. and European Gender Discrimination Laws

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 R Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 R I. U.S. v. European Gender Discrimination Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 R A. The Substantive Prohibitions against Discrimination . . . 31 R 1. Employees at Small Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 R 2. Part-time Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 R 3. Disparate Impact and Wage Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . 33 R B. Procedural Rules, Remedies, and the Burden of Proof . . 34 R 1. The Ability to Gather Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 R 2. Punitive Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 R 3. Class Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 R 4. The Burden of Proof in Disparate Treatment Cases . . . 37 R a. Establishing a Prima Facie Case of Gender Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 R b. The Consequences of a Prima Facie Case . . . . . . 40 R II. Non-Ideological Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 R A. Path Dependence Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 R B. Coherence-based Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 R III. An Ideology-Based Explanation: Historical Background . . . 45 R A. The United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 R B. Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 R 1. Before the Founding of the European Economic Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 R a. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 R b. Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 R 2. The Founding of the European Economic Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 R IV. The Lasting Allure of the Social-Democratic Model . . . . . . . 55 R A. Substantive Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 R 1. Part-time Workers and Employees at Small Firms . . . . 56 R 2. Wage Discrimination and Disparate Impact . . . . . . . . . . 57 R † William Stamps Farish Professor in Law, The University of Texas School of Law. For helpful comments, I thank May Anne Case, Rosalind Dixon, David Engstrom, Joseph Fishkin, Willy Forbath, Jack Getman, and Martha Nussbaum. An earlier version of this article was posted on SSRN on April 8, 2009. 45 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 25 (2012) \\jciprod01\productn\C\CIN\45-1\CIN102.txt unknown Seq: 2 2-APR-12 9:50 26 Cornell International Law Journal Vol. 45 B. Remedies, Procedure, and Rules Governing the Burden of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 R 1. Collective Bargaining Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 R 2. Cause Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 R a. Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 R b. Dismissals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 R c. Employees with Managerial Careers . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 R 3. The Works Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 R V. The Trend Towards Quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 R A. Women on Corporate Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 R B. The Trend towards Quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 R C. Its Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 R 1. Executive Directors and Independent Directors . . . . . . . 73 R 2. The Tip of the Iceberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 R D. Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 R Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 R