Research Library

Sherfel v. Newson Issue Brief

Wisconsin workers should be able to exercise their rights to paid leave under the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act. But does the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act nullify a provision of Wisconsin’s Family and Medical Leave Act that permits workers to substitute employer-provided paid leave for unpaid leave?

Amicus Brief for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Maria Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.

The following amici submit this brief, with the consent of the parties, in support of Plaintiff-Appellant’s argument that an employee triggers the entitlement to job-protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by notifying the employer of the need for time off to care for a family member with a serious medical condition.

Amicus Brief for the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Appellant Peggy Young, a driver for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) delivering packages sent by air, asked her employer for a “light duty” assignment after her doctor recommended that she not lift more than twenty pounds while pregnant.

Amicus Brief: Daniel Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals

Amicus Brief: Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC

Q&A: Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals

How does the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) work? What coverage do state employees have?

Bios: Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals

Daniel A. Coleman was born February 18th, 1952, in Baltimore, Maryland. The second youngest of eight children, he was the first male in his family to graduate from college. He attended North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, where he studied political science, history and business. Upon receiving his bachelor’s degree in 1974, Coleman knew he wanted to advance his education and pursue the business side of the law...

Amicus Brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C.: Mary Kate Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

No one should have to choose between family needs and employment. Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2006) (“FMLA”) in 1993 to ensure that workers could take unpaid leave to care for a new child or seriously ill family member (or to seek medical treatment themselves) without losing their jobs or suffering other adverse employment consequences.

Justice Matters: Senate Should Confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Women and their families are deeply affected by Supreme Court decisions, which shape many aspects of our lives. These rulings can protect or deny our right to privacy and reproductive choice.

Amicus Brief for the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Ingrid Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.

The district court's opinion failed to recognize the gender bias that inherently underlay the hostile language and slurs about women that permeated Ms. Reeves' work environment.

Amicus Brief for the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Mary Lou Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania

Amicus Brief for the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Lynette Harris v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

This Court should reverse the district court's grant of summary judgement and allow this sexual harassment hostile work environment case to proceed to a jury. The lower court used a standard of "directed at" in determining whether the sexually-laden language Ms. Harris faced at her workplace on a regular basis met the requirements for a hostile work environment that does not comport with this Circuit's standards.

Amicus Brief: Frank Ricci et al. v. John Destefano et al.

This Court and Congress have long made clear that Title VII prohibits both disparate impact and disparate treatment discrimination as coequal and complementary components of the Civil Rights Act’s commitment to equal opportunity in the workplace.

The Supreme Court and Abortion Access

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, appeared to ensure that American women would have access to abortion, ruling out any legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy and putting limits on abortion restrictions that could be passed during the later stages of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court and Abortion Access (August 2008)

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, appeared to ensure that American women would have access to abortion, ruling out any legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy and putting limits on abortion restrictions that could be passed during the later stages of pregnancy. The decision followed a long history of women seeking and obtaining abortions – but with a shift in the legal status of the procedure over time.

Amicus Brief: Gonzales v. Carhart; Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood

The evidence presented by a host of respected physicians in the cases challenging the Act demonstrates that women may be virtually unable to obtain any safe abortion at all during and after the fourth month of pregnancy because of the Act’s broad reach, and, even if narrowly construed, the Act can deny women access to the safest available procedure.

Statement of Opposition on the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito

“Good morning. I am Debra L. Ness, President of the National Partnership for Women & Families. We are a national advocacy organization that, for more than three decades, has broken new ground on issues that are vitally important to America’s women and families.

NP Report: Robert's Record on Issues Important to Women & Families

For more than 30 years, the National Partnership for Women & Families has been changing the world in ways that make life better for women and their families. From outlawing sexual harassment to prohibiting pregnancy discrimination to giving 50 million Americans family and medical leave, the National Partnership has fought for every major policy advance for women and families in the last three decades.

Fact Sheet on John Roberts and Women

The more Americans learn about John Roberts, the clearer it becomes that his views are far outside the mainstream. Repeatedly, John Roberts has expressed a narrow and regressive view of laws protecting women’s rights and civil rights.

Deja Vu All Over Again: Re-nomination of Controversial Nominees

The start of each new Congress and Administration provides an opportunity for a fresh start and a fresh approach to critical issues facing our nation. Nowhere is this opportunity more sorely needed than with judicial nominations.