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 | 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.
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Feb 16, 2018 | Amicus Briefs
Women Lawyers On Guard, Inc. has joined an amicus brief in Weckhorst v. Kansas State University, currently pending before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case arises from the rape of two students. The university refused to investigate or otherwise address their reports, citing the fact that the women were raped in school-recognized fraternities but outside the campus boundary. In response to the suit, the university moved to dismiss on these same grounds, and also claimed that the school could not be liable because the students were not further harassed as a result of its deliberate indifference.
The brief argues that because the school was made aware of the sexually violent conduct by its students and refused to investigate the conduct, the school was deliberately indifferent to the claims of the victimized students. The brief argues that when sexual violence goes unresolved, it creates a hostile environment for the victims, who often end up suffering academically.
The brief can be found here: https://nwlc-ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Final-Brief-with-ECF-Header.pdf
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jan 24, 2018 | Amicus Briefs
Women Lawyers On Guard, Inc. has joined an amicus brief by the National Women’s Law Center that highlights the importance of the fair share rule in reducing the wage gap and the importance of public employment and union advocacy for women in the workplace.
The brief argues that public sector professions provide important career opportunities for women and people of color, who often face special barriers to entry in various professions. Because women and people of color comprise a significant proportion of public sector workers and union members, the fair share rule (which requires all public sector employees to pay a share of union expenses) plays a key role in enabling unions to create economic opportunities for all members who benefit from union negotiations, including increasing opportunities for earning parity (reducing the wage gap). The brief points to a wealth of data to show that women and people of color in employment settings covered by unions enjoy greater pay equity and increased benefits than their non-union counterparts.
The brief is available at http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/briefs/NWLC-LeadershipConference-Janus-Brief.pdf.
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jan 2, 2018 | Amicus Briefs
On December 6, 2017, Women Lawyers on Guard joined 16 professional, labor, and student associations in support of motion for a preliminary injunction in California v. Hargan to halt implementation of the Trump administration’s Religious Exemption Rule and the Moral Exception Rule (the “Rules”), and we are pleased to report that the motion was granted! These Rules allow employers to assert conscience-based objections to the contraceptive mandate provided under the Women’s Health Amendment to the Affordable Care Act. If implemented, the Rules could cause hundreds of thousands of women to lose contraceptive coverage. The court referenced our brief to illustrate the harm caused by a potentially large number of employers opting out of providing their employees’ coverage under the rules.
The amicus brief described how seamless, no-cost contraception is essential to women’s equality and advancement. The brief focused on the irreparable harm that would result from the implementation of the Rules, and the public interest in granting the injunction. The brief discussed the number of women who might lose access to contraception under the Rules and described the high number of women who use contraception and whose employers will likely to refuse contraceptive coverage under the Rules. The brief detailed the nearly half a million women working at hospitals, the tens of thousands of college students, the thousands of employees of religiously affiliated non-profits, and the hundreds of thousands of employees of non-religiously affiliated private employers who may lose coverage because of these Rules.
