Doing some policy research? Need some background materials? You've come to the right place.
Note: Documents in the library are organized by issue area — and PDFs require Adobe Reader (free download/upgrade available).
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?
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.
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.
How does the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) work? What coverage do state employees have?
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...
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.
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.
A 2009 friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama improperly concluded that Reeves did not present evidence of gender-based workplace harassment, and urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit not to make the same mistake.
A 2009 friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to reverse the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, which failed to recognize the gender bias and sexual harassing environment of Harris's workplace.
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 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 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 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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
|Items 1 - 20 of 37||1||2||Next|