Editing Matrix of domination (section)

==Intersectionality in court cases==
There are certain cases that are widely cited in discussing intersectional discrimination.

In ''[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/413/142/1660699/ DeGraffenreid vs. General Motors]'' [[Emma DeGraffenreid]] and four other black female production workers were laid off, and took it to court claiming that the company was violating [[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]] because, "it perpetrated past discriminatory practices of not hiring Black females." The court looked at each of the categories, race and gender, separately therefore they missed the discrimination of a person being both African-American and female. "It was argued, black women can expect little protection as long as approaches, such as that in ''DeGraffenreid'', which completely obscure problems of intersectionality prevail."<ref name='cousins'>Cousins, Oswald B. (November 10, 2017). "The Judicial Approach to Intersectional Discrimination: Significant Decisions from a Defense Perspective".</ref>

Another case, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/40/1551/507676/ ''Maivan Lam v. University of Hawai'i''], where intersectionality was the core reason behind the problem that emerged. Maivan Lam was not offered a job twice when she applied to be the Director of the Law School's Pacific Asian Legal Studies Program. Two times, the university was looking for a director and when the final offer came around, and she was the best candidate available, the university simply cancelled their search. In the first search, Professor Lam made it to the final round, but was not offered the job before the whole search was simply shut down. The second time, the position was offered to another candidate and the other candidate refused to accept, the search was simply cancelled without it being offered to Professor Lam. When Lam brought this situation up to the Dean, he suggested reopening the search so that male candidates who had not applied on time could submit their applications. It is stated, "Early in the 1989-90 academic year, the new appointments committee reviewed applications for a commercial law position. At one meeting, a male committee member stated that the Law School should not have two women teaching commercial law. This comment was reported to the Dean, who said that he recognized that the professor had difficulty dealing with women but took no action to remove him from the committee or otherwise to remedy the problem.".<ref>United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i, 1994, Maivan Lam, Plaintiff-appellant, v. University of Hawai'i; Albert Simone, in His Capacity Aspresident of the University of Hawai'i; Andjeremy Harrison, in His Capacity As Deanof the Richardson School Oflaw, Defendants-appellees, 40 F.3d 1551 (9th Cir. 1994)</ref> There was clear intersectionality as Professor Lam was not only arguing regards to race but also how her gender affected her position.

In the case, ''[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/425/1208/1513479/ Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Association]'', April 21, 1980, Dafro M. Jefferies claimed that her former employer failed to promote her to a higher position because of her race and sex. In 1967 she was employed by Harris County Community Action Association as a Secretary to the Director of Programs. She was later promoted to Personal Interviewer in 1970. Everything seemed to be moving in a positive direction for her. However, between 1971 and April 1974, Jefferies applied for promotions in various positions and departments without any luck. She realized that her employer was discriminating against her when two Field Representative positions opened. Jefferies immediately applied. However, the positions were already staffed by a white female and black male the same day that she was told about the vacant position. The company had purposefully told her about the open positions knowing that they were already filled by other staff members. After several complaints to the company, on April 23, 1974 Jefferies was placed on probation. In June 1974, she was terminated from the job because she had called the company out for discriminating against her because of her race and sex. There was clear evidence of intersectionality in this case, she argued; she was not promoted to a higher position because she was both black and a female. However, the court ultimately disagreed with her, insofar as there existed zero concrete evidence to support her case.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/425/1208/1513479/ |title = Jeffries v. Harris County Community Action Ass'n, 425 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex. 1977)}}</ref>