Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Women who make refugee claims on the ground of sexuality-based persecution often fail because the courts and tribunals of the “receiving state” doubt their credibility. The refugee tribunal/courtroom is one of very few sites where women are accused of trying to pass as lesbians. Having by definition come from a space where she needed to hide her sexuality, law then requires her to do the opposite and publicly prove that she is queer. At the same time, after challenging and/or escaping law in her home state, and traversing borders of gender, sexuality and nation-states on her asylum-seeking journey, she then needs to present herself as a defenceless victim in need of protection of the receiving state. In this paper I plan to explore the possibilities for transgression and resistance that are opened up by queer women who move across state borders and who are constantly needing to both subvert and ask assistance of the law, which is in turn unsettled by their presence and agency.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Fear of enforced Female Genital Mutilation forms the basis of many Asylum & Human Rights Appeals coming before the UK Immigration Courts. This paper looks at the legal hurdles such claimants have to clear to be successful, and the higher Appeal Courts' assessment of such claims. FGM claimants have great difficulty, for instance, in engaging the Refugee Convention. This is because to be successful under this Convention persecution must be for a 'Convention Reason'. FGM claimants typically try to establish their membership of a 'particular social group'. However, this argument appears to be increasingly failing before the higher Appeal Courts. This paper looks at the legal reasoning used to dismiss such claims. In order to be successful under the Human Rights Convention, an FGM claimant has to establish a 'real risk' or 'reasonable degree of likelihood' that FGM will occur on return; that the State (of their country of origin) is unwilling and/or unable to provide sufficient protection; and that internal flight (within their own country) is not an option. On the other hand, objective evidence from many of the FGM claimant countries frequently indicates a very high incidence of FGM occurring. This paper looks at the higher UK courts' approach to this complex issue.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper presents preliminary results from the Employment Discrimination Litigation Research Project. It presents analyses of the EEOC confidential allegations file and of a large random sample of federal court filings for the period 1990-2003. No other research project has gained access to both sets of data for the period in question. The paper examines the changing composition of employment discrimination claims in these two venues to examine the impact of changes in statutory and case law, changes in economic conditions, and changes in EEOC procedures on the system of employment discrimination disputing.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Feminist legal scholars have examined the androcentric biases embedded in statutes and practices. This paper examines how constructions of emotion in courtroom testimony embody gendered assumptions that affect legal outcomes for battered women charged with the homicide of their abusers. Based on qualitative interview data, this paper examines the constructions of emotion in courtroom testimony about Battered Woman’s Syndrome (BWS) and in an alternative, Testimony on Battering and Its Effects. I develop the concept of "emotional inferencing" to explain how legal processes use the facts of a case to make claims about the emotional state and moral character of defendants.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Status claims, explicit assertions of skills relevant to position in a group hierarchy, are described and analyzed. The general theoretical perspective is theories of status generalization. Various scholars, working independently but with knowledge of each others’ work, have developed three, slightly different, views on how status claims can affect performance expectations, and thus, the power and prestige structure of groups. Results from a laboratory experiment confirm the general predictions, and the simplest theoretical process adequately represents the data. Some uses of the work include designing interventions to control status generalization from within a group, and effects on legitimation of group structure.