米国における雇用差別訴訟とマネジング・ダイバーシティ ―公共訴訟の視角から―

Abstract

This research explores judicial activism in employment discrimination suits from the perspective of public law litigation, and concludes as follows: First, employment discrimination litigation has had the characteristics of public law litigation. The legislative purpose of Title Ⅶ of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate employment discrimination and realize equal employment opportunity, and the ambiguous definitions of principal concepts of Title Ⅶ by Congress have often led the court to judicial activism, which often plays not only a judiciary role but also legislative and administrative ones. Second, focusing on systemic disparate treatment theory, voluntary affirmative action, and disparate impact theory, which have made significant impacts on elimination of employment discrimination, the research verified judicial activism of the court. Judges have decided for protecting people’s civil rights, ordered affirmative actions with goals and timetables, judged affirmative action being constitutional and not violating Title Ⅶ, and directly or indirectly monitored for implementations of decrees or consent decrees. Judicial activism has strongly promoted to abolish job segregation by race and gender that is the root of employment discrimination, and supported EEOC and OFCCP and naturally collaborated with them to make legislative purpose of Title Ⅶ come true. Third, judicial activism has been progressing since the 1990s, introducing, although implementation is insufficient, managing diversity―pursuing diversity and inclusion in the workplace beyond legal compliance―to consent decrees.