La segregación laboral de las mujeres como caso judicial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2022.69247Resumo
Resumen
En el 2014 la Corte Suprema Argentina decidió el caso Sisnero, considerado el gran leading case en materia de discriminación laboral de las mujeres de Argentina. Pero la demandante nunca consiguió el puesto de chofer que buscaba en su demanda, y 9 años después, el mundo del transporte urbano salteño sigue sin dar señales de una inclusión substantiva de las mujeres. ¿Qué pasó? Esta pregunta guía la presente indagación. Se concluye en que los jueces supremos se equivocaron en dos sentidos fundamentales, los que están interrelacionados. Primero, erraron al definir el “caso o controversia”, y desde allí, diseñaron un remedio judicial defectuoso, fuente de la inevitable frustración de los objetivos de la intervención judicial. Para fundar esta conclusión se recobran evidencias sobre impactos positivos y sobre fallas de implementación de la decisón. Se exploran además, la narrativa de vida de Mirtha Sisnero, las estadísticas de empleo, y los desarrollos de los estudios de género. Ello permite poner en tensión a la amplia teoría del caso del juez de primera instancia, con la defectuosa teoría del caso de los jueces supremos, comparar sus estrategias remediales, y finalmente explicar mejor el fracaso en la implementación de este leading cases de nuestra jurisprudencia.
Palabras claves: Transporte público – discriminación de género – remedios judiciales- acceso a la justicia de las mujeres- idoneidad genérica.
Abstract
In 2014, the Argentine Supreme Court decided the Sisnero case, considered the great leading case in terms of labor discrimination against women in Argentina. But the plaintiff never got the job of driver she was looking for, and 9 years after the ruling, the world of urban transport in Salta still shows no signs of substantive inclusion of women. What happened? This question guides this inquiry. The conclusion of this work is that the supreme judges were wrong in two fundamental senses, which are interrelated. First, they erred in defining the “case or controversy”, and from there, they designed a defective judicial remedy, the source of the inevitable frustration of the objectives of the judicial intervention. To support this conclusion, evidence is collected on positive impacts and implementation failures of the decision. In addition, the life narrative of Mirtha Sisnero, employment statistics, and developments in gender studies are explored. This allows to put in tension the broad theory of the case of the judge of first instance, with the defective theory of the case of the supreme judges, to compare their remedial strategies, and finally to better explain the failure in the implementation of the leading cases of our jurisprudence.
Keywords: Public transport - gender discrimination - judicial remedies - access to justice for women - generic suitability.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Os Direitos autorais patrimoniais dos artigos publicados pertencem à Revista Quaestio Iuris. A reprodução total dos artigos desta revista em outras publicações, ou para qualquer outra utilidade, é permitida a todos, para que distribuam, remixem, adaptem e criem a partir do trabalho aqui publicado, mesmo para fins comerciais, desde que atribuam o devido crédito pela criação original ao autor e o crédito à Revista Quaestio Iuris pela primeira publicação do trabalho. A Revista Quaestio Iuris obedece aos termos da licença Creative Commons de Atribuição 4.0 Internacional CC-BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), em consonância com a legislação autoral brasileira, Lei 9.610/1998.
The patrimonial copyrights of the published articles belong to the Quaestio Iuris Law Review. The total reproduction of the articles of this review in other publications, or for any other use, is allowed to all, to distribute, remix, adapt and create from the work published here, even for commercial purposes, as long as they give due credit for the original creation to the author and credit to Quaestio Iuris Lae Review for the first publication of the work. The Quaestio Iuris Law Review complies with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), in accordance with brazilian copyright law, Law 9.610/1998.
