Law Commons^™

Columbia Law School’S Era Project Releases New Policy Paper Demonstrating Race-Based Gap In Who Benefits From Sex Discrimination Laws, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, New York – On February 27, 2023, Columbia Law School’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Project released a new policy paper showing that despite sweeping federal, state, and local laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in virtually all significant aspects of the U.S. economy and society, white women have been the primary beneficiaries of sex equality laws, leaving women of color significantly behind.

Era Project Summary Of Argument Before Pa Supreme Court On Whether Medicaid Abortion Ban Amounts To Sex Discrimination, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

This morning, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, a case in which reproductive rights advocates have challenged the state’s ban on Medicaid funding for abortion (Coverage Ban), arguing that the ban violates the state constitution’s explicit prohibitions against sex discrimination.

Era Project Summary Of Argument Before Pa Supreme Court On Whether Medicaid Abortion Ban Amounts To Sex Discrimination, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On October 26, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, a case in which reproductive rights advocates have challenged the state’s ban on Medicaid funding for abortion (Coverage Ban), arguing that the ban violates the state constitution’s explicit prohibitions against sex discrimination.

Columbia Law School's Era Project Files Amicus Brief With Pa Supreme Court Explaining Why Banning Public Funding For Abortion Violates The State Era, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On October 13, 2021, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Project at Columbia Law School submitted an amicus — or friend of the court — brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explaining why a state ban on public funding for abortion is a form of sex discrimination, in violation of the state’s Equal Rights Amendment. In the brief filed in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, the ERA Project provided the Court with an overview of how the denial of reproductive health care in general, and access to abortion in particular, has been found by the …

Columbia Law School Think Tank Submits Amicus Brief In Transgender Rights Case, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

April 25, 2017 – Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP filed an amicus brief yesterday with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that raises the important question of whether employers can use religious liberty arguments to avoid compliance with federal non-discrimination laws. Specifically, it considers whether employers have the right to engage in sex discrimination if motivated by religious principles. The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc., was brought on behalf of Aimee Stephens, a funeral home director who was fired …

Risky Arguments In Social-Justice Litigation: The Case Of Sex Discrimination And Marriage Equality, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay takes up the puzzle of the risky argument or, more precisely, the puzzle of why certain arguments do not get much traction in advocacy and adjudication even when some judges find them to be utterly convincing. Through a close examination of the sex discrimination argument's evanescence in contemporary marriage litigation, this Essay draws lessons about how and why arguments become risky in social-justice cases and whether they should be made nonetheless. The marriage context is particularly fruitful because some judges, advocates, and scholars find it "obviously correct" that laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage discriminate facially based on …

Panel Three: Introduction, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

I think some of my colleagues will ask questions about these cases, to ask who is a man or woman, but if the question is legally, what is male or female, and if you think about the questions that you've read, say, in common law out of the Supreme Court – and I'll just talk about discrimination cases, although I think you can talk about other ones, too – think about the sex discrimination cases. The struggle is about, what is discrimination, but the Court in Craig v. Born is talking about different control restrictions for men and women. Or …

On Making Anti-Essentialist And Social Constructionist Arguments In Courts, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

One of my most intense disagreements with another lawyer during nearly a decade of lesbian and gay rights litigation concerned social constructionism. The lawyer (a law professor, if truth be told) wanted to argue in an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court that sexual orientation, like race, was a social constructed category. He reasoned that since the Court had condemned race discrimination even while recognizing the "socio-political, rather than biological" nature of race, it would similarly be willing to invalidate a measure discriminating against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, even while recognizing the socially constructed nature of sexual …

Parallel Lives: Women's Rights And Lesbian Rights Litigation, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

I love the title of this panel because it gave me a chance to think about the historical themes and emerging issues in law related to women's rights, which of course is a mere endless set of possibilities.

I spent much of the last decade doing lesbian and gay civil rights litigation, and the question that I will focus on today grows out of that work and is a comparative one or at least a relational one. The question is this: What is the relationship between women's rights litigation as it has evolved in the last thirty years and lesbian …

Amicus Curiae Brief Of Now Legal Defense And Education Fund And Equal Rights Advocates In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Katherine M. Franke

Faculty Scholarship

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund ("NOW LDEF") is a leading national non-profit civil rights organization that performs abroad range of legal and educational services in support of efforts to eliminate sex-based discrimination" and secure equal rights. NOW LDEF was founded in 1970 by leaders of the National Organization for Women as a separate organization. NOW LDEF has appeared as amicus in numerous cases involving sex stereotyping as a form of sex discrimination, including Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, and Fisher v. Vassar College.

Equal Rights Advocates ("ERA") is one of the oldest public interest law firms specializing in …

Feminism At The Millennium, Carol Sanger

Faculty Scholarship

Sexism of all kinds – subtle and blatant, criminal and legal, commercial and private – is the topic of the three books under review. The books initially sort themselves out by discipline: Everyday Sexism and Subtle Sexism are anthologies whose editors and contributors are primarily sociologists; Speaking of Sex is written by a law professor and offers a more focused argument about the persistence of gender inequalities. Distinctions in authorship aside, the three books pose a pair of similar and painfully familiar questions: Why is so much still organized to the disadvantage of women, and what can (feminist) academics contribute …

Gender Sex Agency And Discrimination: A Reply To Professor Abrams, Katherine M. Franke

Faculty Scholarship

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sexual harassment is the fastest-growing area of employment discrimination. In fact, the annual number of sexual harassment complaints filed with the EEOC has more than doubled in the last six years. No one, or at least no one who has given this problem her serious attention, can deny that workplace sexual harassment is a grave problem and that it significantly impedes women's entrance into many sectors of the wage labor market.

Notwithstanding these impressive numbers, sexual harassment legal doctrine remains remarkably undertheorized – particularly by the Supreme Court. For these and other reasons, …