(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)
'[I]f one heard that the government treated identical women's products differently from men's products, one might think it unfair. One might even wonder if this difference in treatment gives rise to a problem under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.'
-- So begins Brooklyn Law Professor Claire R. Kelly, in an ASIL Insight that explains why "one's" assumptions probably will prove wrong: federal courts tend to require precise evidence of intentional sex discrimination, and tend not to find it. As Kelly explains, the latest court to join this trend is the Court of International Trade, in its judgment in Rack Room Shoes v. United States (Feb. 15, 2102).