Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.97> Article
Research Article

The Structural Limits of Title VII in Addressing Intersectional Discrimination

Yanyi LiKambala School*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

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
Published: November 11, 2025
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2025.HT29388
Volume: CHR Vol.97
pp. 7-15
Download PDF

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