This chapter digs into the stuff of the city, examining the range of objects excavated from homes, garbage pits, moats, and even toilets to try to imagine the rhythms and character of daily life for the residents of Ichijōdani.

This essay examines the meanings of black and white within the early modern lexicon while considering how these meanings translate in performance. It addresses the relationship between the audience perception of race and the performance of blackness on the early modern stage while explaining the various materials and technologies available to early modern actors to create a range of racial identities, such as black and white cosmetic paints, textiles, clothing, and music. Finally, this essay draws upon available evidence about black presence in early modern England to suggest the plausibility of a more diverse audience than theatre scholars have been willing to admit. This diversity therefore would have influenced not only the reception of racial performances but also the development of staged representations of racial otherness over time.

Chapter 4 examines three cases highlighting intersectional approaches to appearance discrimination. The rewritten Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co. exposes the harm caused when employers have gender-specific grooming policies. It rejects the unequal burdens test and concludes that any sex-specific grooming policy violates Title VII unless the policy is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). The rewritten opinion of EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions holds that refusing to hire black women who wear their hair in locs is race discrimination under Title VII. It explores the history of discrimination against black women because of their hair and eliminates the immutability requirement, confirming that discrimination against race-related cultural practices is race discrimination. Finally, the rewritten opinion in Webb v. City of Philadelphia reverses the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to a City that fired a Muslim female police officer because she wore a religious headscarf. The rewritten opinion focuses on the intersectional harm based on sex and religion, and concludes that the City offered no evidence of harm at all, much less evidence of undue burden.