Law Commons^™

Attorney General V. Miaa At Forty Years: A Critical Examination Of Gender Segregation In High School Athletics In Massachusetts, Erin E. Buzuvis

Faculty Scholarship

Forty years ago, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled in Attorney General v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association that the state constitution's newly-added equal rights amendment prohibited the blanket exclusion of boys from girls' athletic teams. The state’s constitutional law departed from Title IX, as well as that of other states, in providing a legal foundation for a wider selection of gender-integrated high school sports. However, most sports remain segregated by sex.

The Author opines that sport organizers in Massachusetts have missed an opportunity to provide students a more balanced menu of athletic opportunities that incorporate both sex-segregated and gender-free sports …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Glbtq Legal Advocates & Defenders Et Al. In Support Of Respondent In Gloucester County School Board V. G.G., Sjc 16-273, Jennifer Levi, Shannon P. Minter, Dean Richlin, Amanda Hainsworth, Rachel Hutchinson, Emily J. Nash

Faculty Scholarship

Amici brief submitted by the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Foley Hoag, LLP. to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., by His Next Friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm. The brief argues that the Court should reject the school board’s claim that privacy interests justify its discriminatory policy for three reasons. First, there is no basis for the creation of a new privacy right that justifies excluding transgender students from shared restrooms. Second, nothing in Title IX or its regulations supports the School …

Federal Equal Protection, Taylor Flynn

Faculty Scholarship

The Author explores the use of due process and equal protection guarantees from the U.S. Constitution as a means to challenge workplace discrimination faced by LGBT government employees. The Author also discusses how private employees must rely on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to assert similar claims. Because sex discrimination is prohibited under both the Constitution and Title VII, federal courts have relied on reasoning in the former context when analyzing the latter, and vice versa. This means that a watershed case regarding one law can contain reasoning for the other. The Author goes on to the discuss …

Pregnancy And Sex-Role Stereotyping: From ‘Struck’ To ‘Carhart’, Neil S. Siegel, Reva B. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The guarantee of equal protection of the laws extends to women as well as men. Yet for the first 100 years of the Fourteenth Amendment’s life, the Supreme Court never found a law unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminated on the basis of sex. Between 1970 and 1980, social movement advocacy and brilliant litigation by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others changed our constitutional law. Over the course of the decade, the Court extended the anti-stereotyping principle from discrimination on the basis of race to discrimination on the basis of sex. But fidelity to the principle had its limits. In …

Equality For Individuals Or Equality For Groups: Implications Of The Supreme Court Decision In The Manhart Case, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This commentary breaks down the case of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart and discusses what effects the Supreme Court's decision will have when Title VII is applied to university employers, particularly in their relationship with TIAA-CREF