Research Library

Amicus Brief: Sherfel v. Gassman

Brief Amici Curiae of National Partnership for Women & Families, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, Legal Momentum, National Women’s Law Center and Service Employees International Union in Support of Defendants-Appellants’ Argument for Reversal.

Amicus Brief: Maetta Vance v. Ball State University

On Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ________ BRIEF OF NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES, ET AL., AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

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.

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 (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.

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.

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.

Amicus Brief: Ledbetter v. Goodyear

Under the ruling below, an employee cannot challenge pay discrimination resulting from any decisions made before the most recent pay decision prior to the 180-day limitations period under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes Amicus Brief

The following amici submit this brief, with the consent of the parties, in support of Respondents’ argument that the order of class certification was consistent with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Amicus Brief: Long Island Care at Home v. Coke

This case concerns whether a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-259, relieved a commercial enterprise of its obligation to pay the federal minimum wage and overtime premiums to employees who provide health care in customers’ homes- or empowered the Labor Department to legislate such an exemption.

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 decision followed a long history of women seeking and obtaining abortions – but with a shift in the legal status of the procedure over time.