(单词翻译:单击)
Hi, I’m Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics
大家好，我是克雷格，这里是政府与政治速成班，
and today I am going to talk to you about something the affects almost everybody, jobs.
今天我要和你们谈谈影响几乎所有人的事情，工作。
Unless you are very lucky or very unlucky, at some point in your life, you will probably have a job and more likely than not, you will be employed by someone else.
除非你非常幸运或非常不幸，否则在你人生的某个时刻，你可能会有一份工作，而且很有可能你会被别人雇用。
The big boss.
大老板。
The person who tells you what to do.
告诉你该做什么的人。
Stan, are you my boss?
斯坦，你是我老板吗?
I’m more of a contractor.
我更像是一个承包商。
The rules about what employers can and can’t do are very complicated and changing all the time,
关于雇主能做什么和不能做什么的规则非常复杂，而且一直在变化，
but one thing they are not allowed to do is discriminate against certain groups of people.
但是有一件事是不允许他们做的，那就是歧视某些群体。
Probably the largest group protected from discrimination is the one we are going to talk about today, women.
也许需要保护不受歧视最大的群体就是我们今天要讨论的女性。
So, before we get into the nitty gritty of the employment discrimination against women, we need to go back a little and explain the middle level of Supreme Court Review.
所以，在我们进入对女性就业歧视的实质之前，我们需要回顾一下，解释一下最高法院的中层审查。
Helpfully called intermediate scrutiny, not Mitzy scrutiny, as I would like to call it.
称之为中间审查可能更有助于理解，而不是我通常称之为的Mitzy审查。
It’s kind of hard to define, but as the name suggests intermediate scrutiny is more stringent than rational basis review,
这有点难以定义，但正如它的名字所暗示的，中间审查比理性基础审查更严格，
where the government usually wins and its actions are allowed to stand, and strict scrutiny where the government usually loses.
在理性基础审查中，政府通常获胜，它的行为被允许成立，而在严格审查中，政府通常失败。
So that’s about as helpful as I can get in terms of letting you know what the outcome of a case will be when courts apply intermediate scrutiny.
所以这是我想让你知道当法院应用中级审查时一个案件的结果会是什么，能提供的最有用的帮助。
It’s more useful for you to know when intermediate scrutiny applies and that’s mainly in cases involving women.
更有用的是，你要知道什么时候进行中间审查，这主要是在涉及女性的案件中。
Now, hold on.
现在，坚持住。
I know many of you are saying “I know that women are often discriminated again for being women
我知道你们很多人在说，“我知道女性经常因为是女性而再次受到歧视，
so what makes them different from other groups that face discrimination like black people or Jewish people or at least in the past, Irish people.”
所以是什么让她们有别于其他面临歧视的群体，比如黑人或犹太人，或者至少在过去，爱尔兰人。”
All of the groups I just mentioned have one common characteristic, at least where the courts are concerned.
我刚才提到的所有群体都有一个共同的特点，至少在法庭方面是这样。
And this is that the thing that makes them a discrete group is something that they can’t change.
这就是使它们成为特殊群体的东西，是无法改变的。
Now, current ideas about sex and gender make this characterization more problematic than the Supreme Court likes to think,
现在，目前关于性别和性别的观点使得这种定性比最高法院想的要困难，
but Supreme Court justices weren’t always the most progressive.
但是最高法院的法官并不总是最进步的。
Also problematic is religion, since we are free to adopt or discard religion as we want.
宗教也是个问题，因为我们可以自由地接受或抛弃我们想要的宗教。
But, I guess that since religion is specifically mentioned in the first amendment and that when the court decided on its categories, religious discrimination was more prevalent than it is now.
但是，我想，由于宗教在第一修正案中被特别提到，而且是由法院决定其类别，所以宗教歧视比现在更加普遍。
That’s why religion is included as a category that will trigger the court to take a closer look.
这就是为什么宗教被列为一个类别，这将促使法院进行更仔细的调查。
But, given the way that the court tends to look at these things,
但是，考虑到法院看待这些事情倾向的方式，
you’d think that sex, by which I mean male and female, would be the kind of thing that would put you in a specific group
你可能会认为性别，我指的是男性和女性，会把你放在一个特定的群体中，
that might be subject to discrimination based on that group identity, right?
可能会因为这个群体的身份而受到歧视，对吧?
Well, probably, but the court’s key reasoning here has to do with the fact that racial, religious and ethnic groups are almost always minorities.
好吧，很有可能，但是法院的主要理由是种族、宗教和民族群体几乎都是少数群体。
And women statistically, at least, are not.
而从统计数据来看，至少女性不是这样。
For the courts, majority groups have a good chance of winning in the legislative process and therefore they don’t need the same level of judicial protection as minority groups.
对于法院来说，多数群体在法律程序中获胜机会很大，因此他们不需要像少数群体那样受到同等程度的司法保护。
Still, there’s been some recognition, that despite there non-minority numbers, women have still historically been treated unequally to men.
不过，也有一些人认识到，尽管有非少数族裔的人数，女性在历史上仍然受到不平等的对待。
Let’s just come right out and say that they have been given inferior status.
更直接的说法就是女性地位更低。
And because of this a law or government action that specifically mentions or is aimed at women will cause the court to look more carefully than when women aren’t mentioned
正因为如此，一项专门提到或针对妇女的法律或政府行动将使法院比没有提到妇女时更仔细地审查，
but less carefully than when religious, ethnic, or racial minorities are mentioned and that’s intermediate scrutiny.
但没有提到宗教、种族或少数民族时那么仔细，这就是中间审查。
So, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws
因此，第14修正案保证了法律的平等保护，
but most of the actual rules against discrimination come out of the federal civil rights act of 1964 and various state anti-discrimination statutes.
但大多数反对歧视的实际规则来自1964年的《联邦民权法案》和各州的反歧视法规。
This is one of the most far reaching and important pieces of federal legislation ever and its history is fascinating,
这是联邦立法中影响最深远、最重要的部分之一，它的历史令人着迷，
but we’re not going to get too much into it here, because this isn’t a History class, this is Government.
但我们不会在这里讲太多，因为这不是历史课，这是政府课。
Sometimes, we talk about history, but not now, ok?
有时候，我们谈论历史，但不是现在，好吗?
The important thing is that it outlawed discrimination against race, religion, ethnicity, or sex in a whole bunch of situations, including public accommodations and transportation and most important employment.
重要的是，它禁止在很多情况下对种族、宗教、种族或性别的歧视，包括公共设施、交通和最重要的就业。
The key section of the civil rights act dealing with employment is title 7, if you’ll excuse the legal language, the most relevant part of the statute is this: [A] EMPLOYER PRACTICES.
《民权法案》中关于就业的关键部分是第7条，如果你不介意使用法律语言的话，法令中最相关的部分是：[A]《雇主行为》。
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer [1] To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual,
雇主[1]不雇用或拒绝雇用或解雇任何个人，均属非法雇佣行为，
or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,
或在补偿、条款、条件方面歧视任何个人，
or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
或因其种族、肤色、宗教、性别或国籍而享有就业特权;
or [2] To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities
或[2]，以剥夺或倾向于剥夺任何个人就业机会的方式限制、隔离或分类其雇员或就业申请人
or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
或因其种族、肤色、宗教、性别或国籍而对其雇员身份产生不利影响。
Despite all the legal language, that seems pretty straight forward.
尽管有各种法律语言，但这似乎相当直截了当。
Unfortunately, it’s a lot easier to say what an unlawful employment practice is than it is to prove that your employer is doing it.
不幸的是，说什么是非法雇佣行为要比证明你的雇主在这么做容易得多。
This is where we again have to get legalistic and explain how discrimination claims work their way through the courts.
所以我们必须再次从法律角度解释歧视索赔是如何通过法庭解决的。
Let’s also get Thought Bubbleistic.
同时让我们进入思想泡泡。
So, let’s say you feel you’ve been discriminated against at work by your employer.
所以，假设你觉得你在工作中受到了雇主的歧视。
What can you do?
你能怎么做？
At least under federal law.
至少根据联邦法律能够如下做。
First, you have to be in a protected class as defined by the law,
首先，你必须属于法律规定的受保护阶层，
which means that you’ll need to show that the discrimination was based on your race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
这意味着你需要证明歧视是基于你的种族、肤色、宗教、性别或国籍。
Now, sometimes this’ll be easy to prove.
现如今，有时这很容易证明。
Like in a case where you’re employer says, I’d give you a promotion if you weren’t black, or gee, I’m sorry to let you go,
比如你的雇主说，如果你不是黑人，我就给你升职，或者，天哪，我很抱歉你得离开，
but you know you’re a woman and we can’t have too many women working here.
但你知道你是女性，我们不能让太多女性在这里工作。
This happens almost never because most people aren’t that bigoted or that stupid,
这种情况几乎从未发生过，因为大多数人并没有那么固执或愚蠢，
but it does happen and if you have this kind of statement and witnesses to back it up, you have a pretty good chance of winning.
但是如果你有这样的陈述和证人来支持，你就有很大的机会获胜。
The more common cases are those where nobody who is a member of a minority group or a woman gets promoted or members of those groups are disproportionately fired.
更常见的情况是，少数群体或女性成员没有得到晋升，或这些群体的成员被不成比例地解雇。
Say if the company has 90 white employees and 10 black employees,
假设公司有90名白人员工和10名黑人员工，
and when they lay off 10% of the work force, 9 black workers are fired and only 1 white one is.
当他们解雇10%的劳动力时，9名黑人工人被解雇，只有1名白人工人被解雇。
This is called a disparate impact and if this happens, new court procedures kick in.
这被称为完全不同的影响，如果发生这种情况，新的法庭程序就会启动。
If you are in a protected class and feel that you are a victim of disparate impact discrimination and you can show that your employer’s action has the effect of exclusion,
如果你在一个受保护的阶层，觉得自己是不同影响歧视的受害者，你可以证明你的雇主的行为具有排斥效应，
then the burden of proof, which normally is with the party making the complaint, you,
然后是举证责任，通常是当事人你自己的责任，
in this case, shifts to your employer, who then has to prove that his actions were caused by a business necessity.
在这种情况下，转移到你的雇主，然后他必须证明他的行为是由业务需要引起的。
I can’t imagine there would be a business necessity for firing 90% of your black work force.
我无法想象有必要解雇90%的黑人员工。
If the employer is able to show that he was forced by business necessity to fire most of his black employees,
如果雇主能够证明他是出于商业需要被迫解雇了大部分黑人雇员，
then burden shifts again back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s reasons are untrue.
那么责任又回到原告身上，证明雇主的理由是不真实的。
That they are just pretext and the action was really taken because the employees were in the protected group.
他们只是借口，采取行动是因为员工在受保护的群体中。
Much of the evidence to show this will probably be statistical and it may be hard to get, which points out a crucial thing about discrimination claims.
许多证据表明，这可能是统计数据，可能很难得到，这指出了歧视索赔的一个关键问题。
They are hard to prove.
真实性很难证明。
Thanks Thought Bubble.
谢谢思想泡泡。
By now, I’ll bet many of you are Craig!
现在，我敢打赌你们很多人都和我一样！
I thought you said you were going to focus mainly on women,
我记得你说过你会主要关注女性
but the discrimination you’ve been describing applies to all sorts of protected groups!
但是你所描述的歧视适用于所有受保护的群体!
Eagles are a protected species, but that’s different.
鹰是受保护的物种，但这是不同的。
So, women are protected against adverse employment actions by federal and state legislation,
因此，联邦和州立法保护妇女免受不利就业行为的侵害，
but they are also protected against sexual harassment in the work place, this might not seem like discrimination right away,
但他们在工作场所也受到免受性骚扰的保护，这看起来不像直观的歧视，
but if you think of discrimination as negative treatment based on one’s membership in a specific group, then it starts to make sense.
但如果你认为歧视是基于一个人在特定群体中的成员身份的消极对待，那么它就开始有意义了。
It makes even more sense when you read about some of the things that women have had to go through at work that have led to discrimination cases.
当你读到一些女性在工作中所经历的导致歧视案件的事情时，你会觉得这更有意义。
I’m not going to go into graphic detail, but it’s pretty horrible.
我不打算详细讨论详细图解，但是它非常可怕。
You should that there are two types of sexual harassment, quid pro quo and hostile workplace environment.
你应该知道有两种类型的性骚扰，交换条件和敌对的工作环境。
Quid pro quo harassment is when an employer or withholds workplace benefits like promotions in exchange for sexual favors.
性骚扰是指雇主为了获得性服务而拒绝提供升职等工作场所的福利。
This is obviously wrong and terrible.
这显然是错误和可怕的。
Hostile Work Environment is a bit trickier because it can be the result of other employees and not necessarily an employer,
敌意的工作环境有点棘手，因为可能是其他员工造成的，而不一定是雇主，
but courts have ruled that it is an employer’s responsibility to ensure that the workplace is friendly to all employees.
但法院裁定，确保工作场所对所有员工都友好是雇主的责任。
I said I wasn’t going to get graphic,
我说过我不会具体描述，
but I think one example might help to understand what sorts of things constitute workplace sexual harassment.
但我认为一个例子可能有助于理解职场性骚扰的构成。
In the case of Burlington vs. Ellerth, Kim Ellerth was subject numerous unwanted advances from her supervisor.
在伯灵顿诉埃勒斯一案中，金·埃勒斯遭到了她的上司多次不请自到的示好。
In one of her conversations with the supervisor, he denied her request on a relatively inconsequential business matter,
在她与主管的一次谈话中，他拒绝了她就一件相对无关紧要的业务问题提出的要求，
but added, “are you wearing shorter skirts yet Kim, because it would make your job a whole heck of a lot easier.”
但是补充说，“你穿短裙了吗，金，因为这会让你的工作轻松很多。”
That’s just disgusting and no one should have to endure those kinds of remarks at work.
这太恶心了，没人应该在工作中忍受这种言论。
Ellerth won her suit against Burlington and I’m going to stop on that relatively cheerful note.
埃勒斯赢了对伯灵顿的官司，我就讲到这里。
It’s important that we have an understanding of workplace discrimination,
了解职场歧视很重要，
because most of us will spend time working and since some of us will be employers, we should have an idea of how to behave and what is that about.
因为我们中的大多数人会花时间工作，而且由于我们中的一些人会成为雇主，我们应该知道如何表现，这是关于什么的。
Women do get some special treatment under the law, a reflection of the fact that they have historically been, and continue to be singled out for mistreatment.
妇女在法律下确实得到了一些特殊待遇，这反映了她们在过去一直受到不公平待遇未来也将持续如此的事实。
The laws and courts have recognized this which is why women receive legal protections from discrimination.
法律和法院已经认识到这一点，这就是妇女受到法律保护不受歧视的原因。
But women have made some gains which is probably a result of their increasing presence in the workplace and power as voters.
但女性也取得了一些进步，这可能是因为她们在工作场所和作为选民的权力越来越大
And if their strides for greater equality on the job and elsewhere continue, I’d say that’s a very good thing.
如果他们继续在工作和其他方面追求更大的平等，我想说这是一件非常好的事情。
It’d be nice if someday there was no need for a heightened level of scrutiny when it comes to laws concerning women,
如果有一天在涉及女性的法律问题上没有必要加强审查，那就好了，
but we’re not there yet, so the fact that anti-discrimination laws and intermediate scrutiny exist is also a good thing.
但我们还没有做到这一点，所以反歧视法和中间审查的存在也是一件好事。
Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next week.
感谢收看，下周见。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios,
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室合作制作的，
support for Crash Course Government comes from Voqal.
对政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity, learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织，在Voqal.org上了解他们的使命和倡议。
Crash Course is made with the help of all these nice women and men.
速成班是在这些善良的男性和女性的帮助下完成的。
Thanks for watching.
谢谢收看。
