by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jan 21, 2019 | Amicus Briefs, Healthcare, Issues, Women's Rights
The judges in both the cases in California and Pennsylvania have issued preliminary injunctions against the administration’s rules that would have enabled employers to opt out of providing insurance coverage of contraceptives.
The amicus brief that WLG signed onto (which was filed in both cases) was quoted in the California opinion to substantiate that there are substantial costs, whether “financial, professional, or personal—to women who unintendedly become pregnant after losing access to the cost-free contraceptives to which they are entitled.”
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jan 14, 2019 | Amicus Briefs, Issues
WLG signed onto Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and State of New Jersey v Donald J. Trump, et al., in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and The State of California, et al v Eric D. Hargan, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Both these cases arise out of the attempt by the Trump Administration to permit employers that are not religious institutions to assert conscience-based objections to the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act. If implemented, the Administration’s “Religious Exemption Rule” and the “Moral Exception Rule” would cause hundreds of thousands of women to lose contraceptive coverage. WLG had joined similar amicus briefs in these courts (also filed by the American Association of University Women and 12 additional professional, labor, and student associations) in support of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration’s interim rules. These cases address the final rules.
The plaintiffs in the California case also include the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
FILED CA AMICUS FILED PA AMICUS
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Dec 17, 2018 | Issues
An important update in the Me Too era: legislation to overhaul the handling of sexual harassment claims in Congress was passed by both chambers. Read more here: https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/senate-passes-sexual-harassment-bill-unanimous-consent
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Dec 13, 2018 | Issues
The gains of the Me Too movement have stalled in Congress as it tries to regulate its own workplace. Read more here: https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/clock-ticks-sexual-harassment-proposals-congress
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Oct 30, 2018 | Amicus Briefs
Kollaritsch v. Michigan State Board of Trustees is a case in the 6th Circuit that presents a legal issue similar to that in the case of Weckhorst v. Kansas State University (in which we also joined the amicus brief): whether a university’s deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s reported assaults deprived them of educational opportunities in violation of Title IX. Specifically, the question was whether the plaintiffs were required to show that their school’s deliberate indifference caused them to suffer further harassment or the fact that after the initial harassment (and the school’s failure to timely investigate) it was sufficient to show, as a violation under Title IX, that they were afraid to go to classes or activities or even stay in school.
