43674 research outputs found
Sort by
In Defense of Immutability
Get PDFOver the last forty years, the concept of immutability has been central to Equal Protection doctrine. According to current doctrine, a trait is immutable if it is beyond the power of an individual to change or if it is fundamental to personal identity. A trait that meets either of these criteria receives heightened legal protection under constitutional antidiscrimination law. Yet most legal scholars who have addressed the topic have called for the abandonment of the immutability criterion on the grounds that the immutability criterion is conceptually confused, morally indefensible, and bound to stigmatize subordinate groups.
A rejection of the immutability criterion is unwarranted. The immutability criterion must be understood as targeting social , as oppose opposed to personal, identities. In this Article, I introduce work from social psychology and sociology to unpack the concept of social identity. I show that stigmatized individuals are denied access to high high-status groups, institutions, relationships, and occupations because of their immutable social identities. I conclude that, for Equal Protection doctrine, it is entirely irrelevant whether “immutable” traits are physically unchangeable or are part of an individual individual’s personal identity.
After defending this “social” conception of immutability, I show that social immutability ties together a number of threads running throughout antidiscrimination law, namely, animus and stigma jurisprudence under the Fourteenth Amendment and the “badges of slavery slavery” reading of the Thirteenth Amendment. I then demonstrate how the social conception of immutability extends antidiscrimination protection to signifiers associated with gender expression, culture, and ethnicity
KELLY LAWS, an individual, Petitioner below and Appellant and Cross Appellee on appeal, vs. WILLIE GRAYEYES, an individual. : OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Get PDFOPENING BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, WILLIE GRAYEYE
BENJAMIN EMPEY, Plaintiff/ Appellant v. UTAH INLAND PORT AUTHORITY, Defendants/ Appellees : Brief of Appellee
No full textOn appeal from the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Honorable Richard E. Mrazik, District Court No. 190903509
Benjamin Empey, Attorney Pro Se for Appellant
Steven J. Joffee (13258), Evan S. Strassberg (8279), Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants/Appellee
MARGIE STEVENS and RON STEVENS, Appellants v. SEVEN PEAKS WATERPARK SLC, INC., d.b.a. SEVEN PEAKS PLACE, SALT LAKE CITY, L.C., including its employees and agents; and DOES I-IX, Appellees
No full textOn appeal from the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Honorable William K. Kendall, District Court No. 1700904217
Joann Shields (4664), Shields Law Firm, P .C.
Sara Pfrommer (9366), Law Offices of Sara Pfrommer, Attorney for Appellant, Ron D. Wilkinson (5558), Heritage Law Offices, Attorneys for Appellan
Al-In Partners, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, and Bradley Dixon, an Individual, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Lifevantage Corporation, a Colorado Corporation Defendant/Appellant : Brief of Appellant
Get PDFBRIEF OF APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTFOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAHTrial Court Case No. 170907711Honorable Andrew H. Ston