Article by Chris Chambers Goodman
This Article examines the interplay between anti-discrimination laws and preferential treatment based on gender and age. It provides a comparative analysis of directives in the European Union and laws in the United States, and explains the rationales for these protections and preferences. Recognizing that in both legal systems discrimination on the basis of age is more readily justified than on the basis of gender, the Article explores the impact mandatory retirement policies can and do have on promoting diversity in the judiciary.
This Article begin with an overview of age discrimination laws and mandatory retirement policies in the United States and the European Union, and explains the justifications for such policies generally, as well as specifically for judges. It then highlights the rationales for gender protections, using a comparative analysis of the gender demographics of judges in both systems, and explores the justifications for enhancing gender diversity and inclusion on the bench. The Article then applies the rational basis and intermediate scrutiny tests for the US, and the legitimate aim and proportionate means test for the EU. The Article concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of using age discrimination to promote gender diversity and inclusion and the role that mandatory retirement policies can play in promoting gender parity in the judiciary.
About the Author
Chris Chambers Goodman, Esq., Professor of Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law; A.B. Harvard cum laude, J.D. Stanford.
Citation
95 Tul. L. Rev. 1 (2020)