The Women in Business Law Initiative at Berkeley Law presents a selection of scientific articles created by the Berkeley Center for Law and Business (BCLB) academic community.

Sex, Power, and Corporate Governance

(Written by Amelia Miazad)

Professor Amelia Miazad writes a powerful paper about how sexual harassment training and compliance programs are ineffective because the issue should be addressed by its root: power imbalances between men and women. 

Overview of Gender Diversity in Business Law

(Prepared by Sheridan Choi and Delia Violante)

This compendium offers statistical insight gathered from various resources, including reports and surveys, to highlight the clear lack of gender diversity in business law. The aim of this compendium is to spread awareness of the inequity in business law and to encourage law firms and companies to champion gender diversity.

Cracking the Glass Ceiling a Piece at a Time: A Primer
(Prepared By Rose Ors and Delia Violante)

There is no argument that gender inequality is a systemic issue. As such, it will take every player in the system to reverse it. It is the hope of the Women in Business Law Initiative at Berkeley Law, that this primer will serve as a springboard for professional goals and by doing so, continue to help create cracks in the glass ceiling for all.

Memorandum of Recommendations
(Prepared By Rose Ors and Delia Violante)

In light of the historical and present challenges faced by women in law firms, the
Women in Business Law Initiative believes special attention needs to be paid to change the challenges into opportunities. Hence, this memorandum was prepared to offer law firms a number of recommendations whose aim is to move the needle not only on gender equity, but also to foster a culture of real opportunity for all lawyers.

Memorandum of Recommendations
(Prepared By Rose Ors and Delia Violante)

As a gateway to the legal profession, Berkeley Law has taken many laudable steps to address the well being crisis by establishing a culture of wellness among its students. This memorandum presents a few more meaningful ways that Berkeley Law can leverage the American Bar Association’s (ABA) work to help end the wellness crisis.

Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon recently co-authored Centros, California’s ‘Women on Boards’ Statute and the Scope of Regulatory Competition, in which the authors consider the current debate over the legitimacy of Senate Bill 826, the California statute mandating that public companies whose principal executive offices are located in California have a minimum number of female directors.

Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon, has published a paper that examines the potential effects of the mandatory board gender quota introduced by the State of California applicable to all firms headquartered in the state.

Professor Catherine Fisk along with Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, published a paper diving into the two cases that revamped the law concerning the Federal Arbitration Act and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing businesses to insulate themselves from class action suits by employees and consumers. 

What forms of discrimination are likely to be salient in the coming decade? This review co-authored by Professor Catherine Fisk flags a cluster of problems that roughly fall under the rubric of inclusive exclusions or discrimination by inclusion. Much contemporary discrimination theory and empirical work is concerned not simply with mapping the forces that keep people out of the labor market but also with identifying the forces that push them into hierarchical structures within workplaces and labor markets. 

Professor Catherine Fisk in this paper argues that the legal framework of autonomy privacy is a necessary supplement to the discrimination analysis that has dominated legal thinking for thirty-five years of challenges to workplace appearance requirements. 

In this article, Professor Catherine Fisk and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky describe the Court’s inconsistent approaches allowing vicarious liability under major civil rights statutes and argue that they cannot be justified by the text or legislative history of these statutes. They argue that each of these statutes is meant to achieve the same purpose, deterring civil rights violations liability advances these goals, and that the Court, therefore, should interpret each of these important civil rights statutes to allow such liability.