by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Sep 4, 2018 | Issues
On Tuesday, September 4, Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network hand delivered a letter to the members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The stakes could not be higher for women than at this moment and the letter urges the Senators to vote against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. Based on the information we have about Judge Kavanaugh, the letter details that his record does not bode well for women with respect to affordable heath care coverage, laws protecting against workplace discrimination and harassment, as well as women’s constitutional right to birth control, reproductive health and choice.
The letter is signed by 184 men and women, including past presidents of the American Bar Association and other bar associations, attorneys general, state senators, law professors, non-profit CEO’s and other leaders of the legal profession as well as prominent non-lawyers- from 32 states and the District of Columbia.
Read letter HERE
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Aug 8, 2018 | Issues
As we hear about sexual harassment and gender bias in all parts of society, here’s a piece about blatant sexism and cultural biases faced by women trial attorneys. Read more…
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/female-lawyers-sexism-courtroom/565778/?utm_source=eb=
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jul 26, 2018 | Issues
A male partner at a prominent law firm has accused his female opposing counsel of getting pregnant to delay their trial. Astonishing? Yes! But the “good news” is that he was suspended. Read details…
Biglaw Partner Accuses Small-Firm Litigator Of Using Pregnancy To Delay Trial
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jul 7, 2018 | Issues
As basic facts come under assault by the current administration, Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network, Inc. found this plan on how to fight the lies to be very instructive: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-lies-are-winning-you-can-fight-back.html.
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jun 20, 2018 | Issues
Women Lawyers On Guard, Inc. has signed on to an Amicus brief in State of California et. al. v. Health and Human Services, et. al. supporting the preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court, N.Dist. California, halting the implementation of the administration’s contraception exemption rules. The brief is also being filed on behalf of the American Association of University Women, National Association of Women Lawyers, and various WBA’s and other entities – a total of 14 organizations.
Here’s some background and why we signed onto this brief:
The Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) requires employer-sponsored health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved methods of contraception without burdening insured women with out-of-pocket costs. However, even under the ACA, houses of worship were allowed “accommodations” so that they didn’t have to provide this coverage. But it also required that a health insurance provider or other third party provide their employees seamless contraceptive coverage instead.
Notwithstanding this compromise for houses of worship, the Trump Administration issued the “Religious Exemption Rule” and the “Moral Exemption Rule” on October 6, 2017.” The Religious Exemption Rule—no longer limited to houses of worship and their auxiliaries—now allows virtually all employers and universities, including large, for-profit companies, to deny no-cost contraceptive coverage to their employees and students. The Moral Exemption Rule, which adds an entirely new basis for denying coverage, applies to non-profit organizations and for-profit, privately held entities with “sincerely held moral convictions”.
And, because these are “exemptions”, not “accommodations” the employees are no longer guaranteed seamless contraceptive coverage.
The Amicus brief that we signed argues for upholding the District Court’s preliminary injunction that stopped HHS from implementing these rules. Our interest (and that of the other amici) is that no-cost contraceptive coverage increases women’s ability to participate and succeed in the workplace and in education.
The brief is available here: 9thCirAmicus_Filed
