The number of hospital based posts in which nurses take over clinical work previously done by junior doctors is growing. Accountability for the scope of such new roles and the standards of practice which apply to them are still unclear. When analysed together and compared, the regulations arising from the professional bodies (GMC and UKCC), civil law concerning certain wrongs to patients, and employment law are sometimes contradictory and hard to interpret. The resulting uncertainties about appropriate management for clinical roles evolving between the professions, coupled with an increasingly litigious public, put the nurses and consultants involved at risk ofcomplaints and ofdisciplinary and legal action. Drawing on our current research into changing clinical roles at the medical-nursing interface, we suggest strategies to reduce risk. Doctors and nurses should be equal partners in planning and managing these new posts, patients should be informed adequately about the nature of the postholder's role and training, significant changes in the work of such postholders should be formally acknowledged by the employer and relevant insurers, individuals taking up new roles should have access to legal advice and support to cover legal risk, and national regulatory bodies need to work together to harmonise their codes of practice in relation to changing clinical roles between the professions.

This article argues the case for incorporating legal discourse into social theories relating to sexuality and organization. The central theme around which this argument is constructed is that of the heteronormativity of the workplace which is critically interrogated by adopting perspectives of lesbian and gay workers. The processes through which this heteronormativity is maintained are examined with particular emphasis on how notions of public and private are strategically deployed to this end. The legal case study evaluates judicial discourse in court judgments noting how it contributes to and reinforces heteronormative practices. Examples are drawn from litigation in the UK and in Germany, illustrating the broad range of discursive techniques in use which in part vary according to the qualities of the legal norm at issue.

This article looks at the role of dress and appearance as a key signifier of gender and sexuality as mediated through the workplace. It explores the sex and sexuality of jobs and organisations, before considering ideas of gay and lesbian performances, noting the role of appearance/clothing in these strategies. Legal discourses which have historically targeted clothing as regulatory target are also problematised, questioning why clothing should be such a central theme. Modern legal discourses are also interrogated, questioning how legal systems can and should control employers' use of dress codes. Case studies from English and German law are used to examine how legal discourses also contribute to the heterosexual construction of the workplace. In conclusion it is argued that in addressing the conjunctions of clothing/work/sex/sexuality, without overplaying the role of law, there is nevertheless a need to explore its discursive function, and its role in erasing gay and lesbian experience.

No abstract

The Framework Directive for equal treatment in employment adopted in November 2000 by the Council of Ministers marks an important event for the millions of lesbians and gay men within the European Union. It follows hard on the heels of the successful lobbying to have “sexual orientation” included within an anti-discrimination article inserted into the Community treaties by the Treaty of Amsterdam, as part of the development of European citizenship.