The Structural Limits of Title VII in Addressing Intersectional Discrimination
Research Article
Open Access
CC BY

The Structural Limits of Title VII in Addressing Intersectional Discrimination

Yanyi Li 1*
1 Kambala School
*Corresponding author: yanyili.lyyo.446@gmail.com
Published on 11 November 2025
Volume Cover
CHR Vol.97
ISSN (Print): 2753-7072
ISSN (Online): 2753-7064
ISBN (Print): 978-1-80590-529-5
ISBN (Online): 978-1-80590-530-1
Download Cover

Abstract

This paper examines the structural limits of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in addressing intersectional discrimination. While the statute prohibits employment discrimination “because of race” and “because of sex,” its categorical design requires courts to treat each ground discretely, producing legal invisibility for women of colour whose harms cannot be parsed into single axes. Through doctrinal analysis, the paper interrogates this paradox: Title VII has achieved significant advances, from recognising sex stereotyping in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins to dismantling overt exclusionary practices, yet its single-axis framework consistently erases intersectional claims, as illustrated by Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and DeGraffenreid v. General Motors. Engaging with jurisprudential theory, the analysis situates Title VII within broader debates between Hart’s positivist emphasis on rule-based clarity. The paper argues that equality statutes function as boundaries: they forbid certain conduct but cannot repair systemic subordination. Comparative reference to international frameworks such as CEDAW highlights alternative models of substantive equality, though enforcement remains weak. The conclusion considers both legislative reform and judicial reinterpretation but emphasises the central paradox of equality law: the very clarity that secures its enforceability also renders it least capable of recognising injustice in its most entrenched, intersectional forms.

Keywords:

Title VII, sex stereotyping, disparate impact

View PDF
Li,Y. (2025). The Structural Limits of Title VII in Addressing Intersectional Discrimination. Communications in Humanities Research,97,7-15.

References

[1]. Mayeri, S. (2015) Intersectionality and Title VII: A Brief (Pre-)History. Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. Retrieved from https: //scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1586/

[2]. Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1). Retrieved from https: //chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/

[3]. Michigan Law Review (2023) Title VII’s Failures: A History of Overlooked Indifference. Michigan Law Review, 121(8). https: //doi.org/10.36644/mlr.121.8

[4]. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). Retrieved from https: //supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/228/

[5]. DeGraffenreid v. General Motors Assembly Division, 413 F. Supp. 142 (E.D. Mo. 1976). Retrieved from https: //law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/413/142/1660699/

[6]. Noonan, J.T. (1962) The Concept of Law. By H. L. A. Hart. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 7(1), 169–177. https: //doi.org/10.1093/ajj/7.1.169

[7]. Christie, G.C. and Dworkin, R. (1987) Dworkin’s “Empire.” Duke Law Journal, 1987(1), 157. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1372507

[8]. Hall, S. (1993) What is this “Black” in Black Popular Culture? Social Justice, 20(1/2), 104–114. Retrieved from https: //www.jstor.org/stable/29766735

[9]. Fineman, M.A. (2008) The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20(1). Retrieved from https: //www.researchgate.net/publication/228137515_The_Vulnerable_Subject_Anchoring_Equality_in_the_HumCouch, K.A., Hersch, J. and Shinall, J.B. (2015) Fifty Years Later: The Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 424–456. Retrieved from https: //www.jstor.org/stable/43866378

[10]. Franke, K.M. (1997) What’s Wrong with Sexual Harassment? Stanford Law Review, 49(4), 691. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1229336

[11]. Primus, R. (2010) The Future of Disparate Impact. Michigan Law Review, 108(8), 1341–1387. https: //doi.org/10.2307/20775015

[12]. Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1229039

[13]. Cornell Law School (2019) 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2 — Unlawful employment practices. Retrieved from https: //www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2

[14]. Celio Diaz, Jr. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971). Retrieved from https: //law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/442/385/97570/

[15]. Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977). Retrieved from https: //supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/321/

[16]. United Nations (2009) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Retrieved from https: //www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

[17]. McDougall, G. (2021) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination — Main Page. Retrieved from https: //legal.un.org/avl/ha/cerd/cerd.html

[18]. Charlesworth, H. (2025) No Principled Reason: The Challenge of Human Rights Law for Religious Traditions. Eureka Street, 7(9), 24–31. Retrieved from https: //researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/publications/no-principled-reason-the-challenge-of-human-rights-law-for-religi

References

[1]. Mayeri, S. (2015) Intersectionality and Title VII: A Brief (Pre-)History. Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. Retrieved from https: //scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1586/

[2]. Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1). Retrieved from https: //chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/

[3]. Michigan Law Review (2023) Title VII’s Failures: A History of Overlooked Indifference. Michigan Law Review, 121(8). https: //doi.org/10.36644/mlr.121.8

[4]. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). Retrieved from https: //supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/228/

[5]. DeGraffenreid v. General Motors Assembly Division, 413 F. Supp. 142 (E.D. Mo. 1976). Retrieved from https: //law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/413/142/1660699/

[6]. Noonan, J.T. (1962) The Concept of Law. By H. L. A. Hart. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 7(1), 169–177. https: //doi.org/10.1093/ajj/7.1.169

[7]. Christie, G.C. and Dworkin, R. (1987) Dworkin’s “Empire.” Duke Law Journal, 1987(1), 157. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1372507

[8]. Hall, S. (1993) What is this “Black” in Black Popular Culture? Social Justice, 20(1/2), 104–114. Retrieved from https: //www.jstor.org/stable/29766735

[9]. Fineman, M.A. (2008) The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20(1). Retrieved from https: //www.researchgate.net/publication/228137515_The_Vulnerable_Subject_Anchoring_Equality_in_the_HumCouch, K.A., Hersch, J. and Shinall, J.B. (2015) Fifty Years Later: The Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 424–456. Retrieved from https: //www.jstor.org/stable/43866378

[10]. Franke, K.M. (1997) What’s Wrong with Sexual Harassment? Stanford Law Review, 49(4), 691. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1229336

[11]. Primus, R. (2010) The Future of Disparate Impact. Michigan Law Review, 108(8), 1341–1387. https: //doi.org/10.2307/20775015

[12]. Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1229039

[13]. Cornell Law School (2019) 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2 — Unlawful employment practices. Retrieved from https: //www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2

[14]. Celio Diaz, Jr. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971). Retrieved from https: //law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/442/385/97570/

[15]. Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977). Retrieved from https: //supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/321/

[16]. United Nations (2009) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Retrieved from https: //www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

[17]. McDougall, G. (2021) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination — Main Page. Retrieved from https: //legal.un.org/avl/ha/cerd/cerd.html

[18]. Charlesworth, H. (2025) No Principled Reason: The Challenge of Human Rights Law for Religious Traditions. Eureka Street, 7(9), 24–31. Retrieved from https: //researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/publications/no-principled-reason-the-challenge-of-human-rights-law-for-religi

Cite this article

Li,Y. (2025). The Structural Limits of Title VII in Addressing Intersectional Discrimination. Communications in Humanities Research,97,7-15.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

About volume

Volume title: Proceeding of ICIHCS 2025 Symposium: The Dialogue Between Tradition and Innovation in Language Learning

ISBN: 978-1-80590-529-5(Print) / 978-1-80590-530-1(Online)
Editor: Enrique Mallen, Heidi Gregory-Mina
Conference website: https://2025.icihcs.org/
Conference date: 17 November 2025
Series: Communications in Humanities Research
Volume number: Vol.97
ISSN: 2753-7064(Print) / 2753-7072(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

For authors
For editors
For reviewers

Cookies are used by this site.
Copyright © 2024 EWA Publishing, its licensors, and contributors. All rights reserved, including text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.