The WBA participates as an amicus party in briefs filed in appellate courts at the state and federal level. Signing on to and filing independent amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs furthers the WBA’s desire to advocate for the issues that are most pressing to its membership and that align with its mission. Amicus briefs filed by or with the support the WBA also offer a critical voice, relevant insight, and persuasive arguments that may assist jurists deciding important, precedential legal cases.
The WBA welcomes applications for amicus support. This page includes information about the WBA’s selection criteria and evaluation process. For more information about cases that we have supported, please review summaries of the cases under WBA Amicus Brief Sign Ons. Persons interested in requesting amicus support from the WBA for a pending case can complete our form after reviewing the information below.
WBA Amicus Brief Sign-ons
Alabama v. Department of Education, et al. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit)
The WBA signed on to the brief prepared by the National Women’s Law Center. The lawsuit involves challenges to new regulations that the Department of Education proposed and attempted to implement to ensure that “discrimination on the basis of sex” in educational setting includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The district court denied the Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction in this case, and they have appealed that ruling.
Similar to the Tennessee v. Cardona, which WBA signed on to, this brief support the Title IX rule, pointing out that Plaintiffs’ claims are based on myths about transgender students and debunking those myths. It argues that, weighing the documented harms to transgender students that the rule aims to prevent against Plaintiffs’ unsupported allegations that the rule poses harm to cisgender students, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of the Defendants. Because the Eleventh Circuit has significant adverse legal precedent in this area (Adams v. Sch. Bd. Of St. Johns Cty., 57 F.4th 791 (11th Cir. 2022)), this brief took a slightly different approach from previous Title IX amicus filings in the Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits, where no such precedent exists.
Kansas v. Department of Education, et al. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to the brief prepared by the National Women’s Law Center. The issues and amicus brief for this case is virtually identical to Tennessee v. Cardona in the Sixth Circuit. Like in the Sixth Circuit case, the lawsuit involves challenges to new regulations that the Department of Education proposed and attempted to implement to ensure that “discrimination on the basis of sex” in educational setting includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The district court granted the states’ requests for preliminary injunctions on the grounds that the new regulation exceeded the Department’s authority and was arbitrary and capricious.
The brief challenges the district courts’ rulings on three main grounds. 1) The trial courts misinterpreted the text and purpose of Title IX narrowly, which Congress actually drafted broadly. 2) Analogous caselaw in the Title VII context should apply and that the district court decisions conflict with decisions of multiple other circuits. 3) The injunctions would actually cause significant harm to transgender student without adding any particular protection for cisgender female students.
Louisiana, et al., v. Department of Education, et al. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to the brief prepared by the National Women’s Law Center. The issues and amicus brief for this case is virtually identical to Tennessee v. Cardona in the Sixth Circuit. Like in the Sixth Circuit case, the lawsuit involves challenges to new regulations that the Department of Education proposed and attempted to implement to ensure that “discrimination on the basis of sex” in educational setting includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The district court granted the states’ requests for preliminary injunctions on the grounds that the new regulation exceeded the Department’s authority and was arbitrary and capricious.
The brief challenges the district courts’ rulings on three main grounds. 1) The trial courts misinterpreted the text and purpose of Title IX narrowly, which Congress actually drafted broadly. 2) Analogous caselaw in the Title VII context should apply and that the district court decisions conflict with decisions of multiple other circuits. 3) The injunctions would actually cause significant harm to transgender student without adding any particular protection for cisgender female students.
Tennessee v. Cardona (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center’s brief in support of the appellant, Michael Cardona in his professional capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. In April 2024, the Department of Education issued a rule that made a variety of amendments to its Title IX regulations. Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia, joined by a high school student and an association of religious educators, sued the Department, asserting that the rule’s treatment of gender identity—specifically relating to pronouns and restrooms—will cause them irreparable harm.
The new rule makes clear that “discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” The plaintiffs and intervenors won a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department from enforcing the new rule in the six states. The district court concluded that the rule would put students and faculty at risk, would compel affirmation of gender identity by requiring the use of preferred pronouns, would silence opposing viewpoints, would infringe on parents’ constitutional rights, and arbitrarily permitted sex separation in some circumstances but not others. The Department appealed.
The amicus brief focuses on two main points. First, that the district court’s reasoning ignores the text and purpose of Title IX. Second, the brief explains that allowing transgender students to use facilities that align with their gender identity does not harm cisgender students.
The brief details both the expansive text and legislative history of Title IX. It also addresses a number of decisions from the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits that either directly conflict with the district court’s decision or use reasoning that conflicts with the reasoning below. This discussion both establishes that a great weight of authority contradicts the district court and also sets up arguments relating to a potential circuit split. The brief also addresses cases in the Title VII context, where the Supreme Court made clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The brief explains how Title VII cases are instructive and that the Sixth Circuit should apply those cases and that reasoning. The brief also addresses the harms to transgender students and the incorrect assumptions that the district court endorsed. Moreover, the brief explains that prohibiting transgender students from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity actually exposes those students to significantly greater risks of sexual harassment and negative health outcomes.
Knouse v. Sabatini (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court)
The WBA signed on to a National Women’s Law Center brief in support of Appellant, Dr. Kristin A. Knouse. While Dr. Knouse was a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) between 2010 and 2018, Dr. Sabatini had been her instructor and served on her thesis committee. In 2016, after showing interest in Dr. Knouse, Dr. Sabatini started asking her about her future as a potential post-graduate fellow at MIT’s Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (“Whitehead”). Starting in March 2018, while Dr. Knouse was still a graduate student, Dr. Sabatini pressured her to have sex with him. When Dr. Knouse became a post-graduate fellow at Whitehead in 2018, Dr. Sabatini oversaw a laboratory within the organization while also mentoring Dr. Knouse, whose laboratory work was underwritten by an NIH grant. Dr. Sabatini’s pressure for sex and sexual encounters with Dr. Knouse continued between March 2018 through December 2019, when Dr. Sabatini became interested in another young woman scientist.
In 2019, Dr. Knouse first reported her issues with Dr. Sabatini to another MIT faculty member, but Dr. Knouse was advised to keep quiet until she left Whitehead. In Summer of 2020, Dr. Ruth Lehmann became Whitehead’s director and retained a third-party to conduct an anonymous diversity, equity, and inclusion survey within Whitehead to assess the culture. In October 2020, Dr. Knouse disclosed to Dr. Lehmann the harassment she had experienced by Dr. Sabatini. After Dr. Lehmann reviewed the concerning results of the culture survey, Whitehead retained a law firm to investigate sexual harassment and retaliation in the organization. Dr. Knouse was one of 43 individuals interviewed, and she had entered into a Tolling Agreement with respect to her potential discrimination claims while the investigation was outstanding. By August 2021, the investigators’ report was finalized and found that the lab environment was inappropriate, sexist, and sexualized. The investigators found explicitly that Dr. Sabatini leveraged his status and exploited his power in exchange for sex with respect to Dr. Knouse. Dr. Sabatini resigned from MIT shortly thereafter.
Dr. Sabatini filed a lawsuit against Dr. Knouse, Dr. Lehmann, and Whitehead, including claims of defamation against Dr. Knouse for her statements to MIT/Whitehead faculty and during the investigation. Dr. Knouse filed a counterclaim, as well as an anti-SLAPP Motion under Massachusetts law to dismiss Dr. Sabatini’s claims. Dr. Knouse’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied by the Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk, and she now appeals this decision.
The brief first establishes through robust statistics the pervasiveness of sex-based harassment in academia and underreporting out of fears over retaliation. The opening argument also includes statistics showing that reported harassers are increasingly weaponizing retaliatory defamation lawsuits, otherwise known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), against victims to silence them or financially disincentivize victims from reporting and pursuing sexual harassment claims.
The brief goes on to effectively argue how the enforcement of anti-SLAPP laws ensures that the purpose of anti-discrimination laws is not frustrated by retaliatory and baseless defamation claims from alleged harassers. Federal and state anti-discrimination laws—related to both employment and education environments—require victims to report sexual harassment before seeking relief. Permitting reported harassers to weaponize defamation lawsuits against victims for engaging in required reporting, therefore, defeats the entire purpose of anti-discrimination laws.
The brief successfully closes with its argument that Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP law should be and is intended to protect statements made during internal investigations and/or included in internal reports related to harassment claims in both academic and employment settings.
FDA , et al. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. (U.S. Supreme Court)
The WBA prepared and submitted a brief arguing that the Fifth Circuit inappropriately credited the doctors’ speculative injury allegations and erred in finding standing. The doctors themselves do not prescribe mifepristone, and nothing requires them to do so. In addition, the Fifth Circuit decision fails to address the suffering it will impose on women and the harms it will impose on society, noting that millions of women will suffer if access to mifepristone is restricted. The brief states that Safe Haven laws do not remedy the harms of denying women access to safe and effective health care and in no way address the harms to women presented by forced pregnancy. Relying on these laws to address the consequences of restricting abortion access imposes additional social harms. The brief asks the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit. Click here to view the brief.
Doe v. Horne (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted by Hogan Lovells, LLP on behalf of the National Women’s Law Center. The brief is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellees, transgender girls who filed suit to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief related to an Arizona law (i.e., S.B. 1165) that prohibits transgender girls from participating in athletic programs designated for “females,” “women,” or girls.” Plaintiff-Appellees argued that S.B. 1165 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that S.B. 1165 violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, granting Plaintiff-Appellees’ motion for a preliminary injunction and permitting Plaintiff-Appellees to play on their schools’ girls’ sports teams. Defendant-Appellants appealed the District Court decision to the Ninth Circuit.
The brief promotes two main arguments: (1) S.B. 1165 harms all women girls, including transgender and cisgender women and girls, and (2) S.B. 1165 violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, as decided in directly precedential case law. Protecting all girls and women, both transgender and cisgender—particularly young, school-aged women seeking inclusion, camaraderie, and senses of accomplishment—is certainly an issue important to the WBA.
U.S. v. Rahim (U.S. Supreme Court)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted by Arnold & Porter on behalf of the Network for Victim Recovery of DC. The brief is filed on behalf of the Petitioner. The Respondent, Zackey Rahimi, was issued a restraining order by a Texas state court in 2020, which prevented him from engaging in certain harassment-like behavior toward his former girlfriend and child, and he was ordered not to possess/own firearms. A warrant was issued to search Respondent’s home for a crime unrelated to the restraining order, firearms were discovered in Respondent’s home, and he was charged with unlawful firearm possession under USC § 922(g)(8) for having firearms despite being “subject to a court order that restrains [him] from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.” At the District Court level, Respondent’s appeal of his conviction was rejected, as was his challenge to USC § 922 (g)(8) as unconstitutional. Respondent appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which ultimately held that USC § 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment.
The statistics and anecdotal evidence in the brief stress the dangers to children when a domestic abuser possesses firearms and their need for protection offered by § 922(g)(8). The WBA fosters the protection and rights of women and their children, as women are often the target of domestic abuse and more often have primary custody over children who are present when abuse occurs. While the parties in this matter and other amici have otherwise focused the issue on how restrictions affect firearms owners, this matter reminds the audience that children’s lives and psychological states are at severe risk if abusers are permitted to keep firearms.
LaRose v. King County, Washington et al. (Court of Appeals of the State of Washington)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). The brief was filed in support of Sheila LaRose, a former public defender who experienced sexual harassment, including stalking by a work-related third party. Her employer had no sex harassment policy and took no effective action for months after she reported harassment. Sheila LaRose won a multi-million-dollar judgment against King County, and the County is currently appealing this decision arguing that they should not be liable because the harassment took place outside of the office and was by a former client.
The amicus brief supports Ms. LaRose in the County’s appeal before the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, arguing that workplace civil rights laws protect employees against workplace-related harassment by third-parties, extend beyond the physical workplace, and do not require harassed employees to notify “upper management” beyond immediately direct supervisors. The brief highlights that employers are required to protect employees from workplace-related harassment by third parties, and this is true even if the harassment occurs outside the bounds of a physical place of employment. It emphasizes that incorrectly limiting protections solely to a physical place of employment ignores both the types of harassment workers face as well as the parameters of today’s work environment, including teleworking. The brief underscores that requiring a more burdensome approach than informing your direct supervisor of workplace discrimination, such as informing top or “upper” management, would create even more barriers to reporting discrimination and frustrate the purpose of workplace civil rights laws.
The arguments, examples, and statistics in the brief effectively favor Ms. LaRose’s workplace civil rights while undercutting the County’s baseless arguments and misinterpretation of the law. The brief is consistent with the WBA’s advancement of women’s interests in the workplace, including protection from sexual harassment, and upholds the spirit of laws designed and implemented to ensure justice for oft-targeted populations. Specifically, the brief explains both how women and people of color are subjected to workplace harassment at significantly higher numbers and how anti-workplace harassment laws are intended to protect these populations. The brief effectively supports Ms. LaRose’s argument that the jury verdict in her favor was both legally and practically sound.
B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, et al. (4th Circuit Court of Appeals)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). This case involves an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in which the Court granted summary judgment and concluded that West Virginia House Bill 2393 (“H.B. 3293”) did not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. Specifically, H.B. 3293 precludes women and girls who are transgender from participating in sports and receiving the benefits of such participation.
The amicus brief urges the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The brief highlights precedent that calls for a broad application of Title IX and outlines how the court’s application of the statute impacts transgender students who are on puberty blocking treatments. The brief also sets out how the categorical exclusion of transgender women and girls is not substantially related to West Virginia’s asserted interest in protecting competition for cisgender girls. It also argues that H.B. 3293 is not only harmful to women and girls who are transgender but also is harmful to women and girls who are intersex, who identify as cisgender, or who are perceived as not conforming to sex stereotypes. It also argues that Black and Brown women’s bodies will be further impacted by the legislation because the legislation is focused on society’s expectations of white femininity.
The brief points out that there is no evidence that transgender-inclusive athletics policies are harmful to cisgender women and girls and that H.B. 3293 promotes gender inequity in women’s sports.
Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, et al. (4th Circuit Court of Appeals)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP. This case involves the broad civil rights protections afforded by Title VII and the limited exceptions carved out by Congress for religious employers.
Specifically, this case involves Plaintiff-Appellee Lonnie Billard (“Mr. Billard”), a former full-time teacher and substitute teacher who worked at Charlotte Catholic High School (“the School”) for nearly 15 years. Despite the fact that Mr. Billard was an established and well-regarded English and Drama instructor, the School fired Mr. Billard after he posted on his personal Facebook account, his intention to marry a person of the same sex. The brief contends that the School seeks to deny Mr. Billard his workplace protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, including by religious employers.
Mr. Billard, represented by the ACLU, won summary judgement in the district court which found that Mr. Billard’s role as a substitute teacher of secular subjects without any responsibility for providing religious education to students” required the court to protect Mr. Billard’s civil and employment rights under Title VII. The School appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit. The amicus brief contends that the Court should affirm the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment in Mr. Billard’s favor, as Title VII provides essential workplace civil rights protection for employees of religious employers with narrow exceptions. The Brief contends that the School’s argument would erroneously expand the limited exceptions that Congress created for religious employers, resulting in removing workplace protections from nearly one million employees.
A.M. v. Indianapolis Public Schools, et al. (7th Circuit Court of Appeals)
The WBA signed on to a National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) brief in support of Plaintiff-Appellee. This case involves an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in which the Court granted an injunction enjoining House Enrolled Act (“H.E.A.”) 1041 from going into effect after finding that A.M. is likely to succeed on the merits of her Title IX claim. Specifically, H.E.A. 1041 precludes women and girls who are transgender from participating in sports and receiving the benefits of such participation. A.M. is a 10-year-old girl who was assigned the sex of male at birth but has lived as a girl since before she was 4 years old. Indiana recognized this by allowing A.M. to legally change the gender assigned to her on her birth certificate and by changing her legal first name to her chosen female name. A.M. has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, receives medical treatment, and is on a puberty blocker. Last year, A.M. played on her elementary school’s girls’ softball team. If H.E.A. 1041 went into effect, the bill will deny A.M. the ability to rejoin the girls’ softball team. The Court ruled that H.E.A. 1041 would force schools to violate the clear language of Title IX by discriminating against transgender students based on their sex. The Court also found that an injunction was necessary to prevent the irreparable harm that would be caused by forcing A.M. to be “outed” as a transgender girl to her school community. The brief urges the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the preliminary injunction.
Boyer v. United States (U.S.) (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) regarding judicial interpretation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), which codifies the right to equal pay for equal work and prohibits wage disparities based on sex. Specifically, the case focuses on the proper application of the “factor other than sex” affirmative defense of the EPA. The brief contends that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims erred in finding that the Department of Veteran Affairs provided a legitimate affirmative defense when it relied on the parties’ previous salaries in setting their pay rates, failing to recognize the significant and widely recognized ways that reliance on salary history in setting pay perpetuates sex-based discrimination. The the brief asks the Court of Appeals to reverse the Court’s summary judgement ruling and to enter a judgement for Boyer, holding that reliance on a prior salary, especially reliance on a prior salary alone, is not a legitimate justification for pay disparity under the EPA.
303 Creative v. Elenis (U.S. Supreme Court)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and Covington & Burling LLP in support of Colorado’s public accommodations law that protects LGBTQ individuals from discrimination. The case involves a web design firm that refuses to create wedding websites for LGBTQ customers. The brief presents arguments similar to those made in the Masterpiece Cakeshop brief (which WBA also signed on to) and focuses on the harms that women would face should such an exception be made to public accommodations laws. The brief highlights the importance of public accommodations laws to the full participation of women and LGBTQ individuals in society. It also explains why the First Amendment does not exempt businesses from compliance with these laws, and the harms that would be caused if the Court allowed such an exemption.
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College consolidated with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (U.S. Supreme Court)
The WBA and the Washington Bar Association were Amici Curiae in support of the Respondent-Appellees in a case involving a consolidated appeal from the U.S. Court for the First and Fourth Circuits in which the court affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts finding that, inter alia, that the limited race-conscious admissions policies of the university do not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and survive strict scrutiny. The petitioner-appellants appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and seek to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 483 (2003), and hold that Harvard’s policy penalizes Asian-American applicants thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Equal Protection Clause.
The brief begins with an historical overview of the Fourteenth Amendment and its purpose–that is to remedy the harms inflicted by centuries of American chattel slavery and post-slavery de jure discrimination. Amici points to post-civil war laws such as poll taxes and literacy tests, that relegated Black Americans to second-class citizenship as one of many examples of past harms inflicted on Black Americans. Amici goes on note that for decades, Black lawyers litigated cases that would ultimately lead to the overturn of Plessy. There was then a renewed focus on the detrimental impact that barriers to education had on Black youth. In later years, more attention was being paid to how to alleviate the harm that was caused by past discrimination as well as ongoing contemporary discrimination. This is evident in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and later in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court found that race-conscious admissions policies that serve a compelling state interest do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Ultimately, Amici argues, the Fourteenth Amendment permits race-conscious measures aimed at remediating past racial discrimination.
Amici goes on to note that even the existing race-conscious admissions policies are not enough to mitigate past harmful outcomes and more importantly, those past harmful outcomes explain some of the disparities we see today in housing, employment, and higher education. Therefore, a race-neutral admissions policy, as described by petitioners, are insufficient to further the aim of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lastly, Amici points out the detrimental impact that barring race-conscious admissions policies have had on California’s student diversity which saw a decline in minority enrollment and Texas, which saw a 90% drop in admission of Black students. Given that racial inequalities still exist in higher education and beyond, race-conscious admissions policies must still be upheld to comport with the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Koussa, et al. v. Ellis-Hibbert, et al. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Judicial Court)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). Plaintiffs-Appellants filed petitions for inclusion on the state election ballot, proposing that drivers for Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and GrubHub be designated as independent contractors. The petition also proposes a scheme for app-based drivers that falls short of the benefits and protections afforded to employees in Massachusetts.
The brief asks the Massachusetts Superior Court to rule that the Secretary of State should be barred from placing the petitions on the November 2022 ballot because they are confusing and misleading to voters and harmful to workers, particularly women and people of color. The brief provides statistics on the percentage of women working with some of the companies. It also provides details on benefits and protections that would be lost, including paid family and medical leave, sick leave, unemployment insurance, and guaranteed pay for the time during which drivers work or are expected to work, whether actively doing the work or not.
Brown v. Arizona Bd. Of Regents (9th Circuit Court of Appeals)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP in support of Petitioner-Appellant. In 2016, the Petitioner-Appellant, Mackenzie Brown, who was a University of Arizona (“University”) student at the time, was sexually assaulted by a University football player, Orlando Bradford, 10 times over a two-day period in Bradford’s off-campus apartment. Ms. Brown filed a complaint against the University under Title IX, claiming that the University was liable for Bradford’s actions because it exercised substantial control over Bradford, as he was a scholarship athlete. Ms. Brown also argued that the University had control over the context in which the assaults occurred because the University had knowledge of Bradford’s prior assaults of other University students and failed to address these prior assaults adequately. The District Court granted the University’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the University had substantial control over Bradford, but it did not have substantial control over the context in which Ms. Brown’s assault occurred.
Ms. Brown appealed the District Court’s order to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit relied on the assault occurring in a private, off-campus residence unconnected to any school activity as the basis for determining that the University lacked control over the context in which the assaults occurred. Ms. Brown then filed a petition for a rehearing before the Ninth Circuit en banc.
The amicus brief argues that the Ninth Circuit’s narrow interpretation of Title IX goes against the spirit of the law and would increase the likelihood of sexual harassment in university settings without sufficient remedies and protections for the victims. The brief mostly focuses on the faults with the Ninth Circuit’s narrow interpretation of when a university is considered to have “control over context,” and thereby potential liability, for sexual harassment of its students.
Carolina Youth Action Project v. Wilson (formerly called Kenny v. Wilson) (4th Circuit Court of Appeals)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP in support of Plaintiff-Appellants. This case involves an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in which the court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees by permanently enjoining the enforcement of South Carolina’s Disorderly Conduct Law, S.C. Code Ann. §16-17-530, and Disturbing Schools Law, S.C. Code Ann. §16-17-420 “(school disciplinary laws”) as applied to current elementary and secondary students and permanently enjoining the retention of juvenile records for student charged un the school disciplinary laws. The defendant-appellants appealed the ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The brief urges the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the district court’s ruling. It outlines the ways in which school disciplinary laws like those enacted in South Carolina lead to “school pushout” and ultimately marshals students into the school-to-prison pipeline. Namely, it notes that these policies also disproportionally impact black students as well as other marginalized populations such as people of color and students with disabilities.
Gottwald v. Sebert (New York Court of Appeals)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) in support of in support of singer and songwriter Kesha, who is being sued for defamation by her sexual abuser and former producer Dr. Luke. In 2014, Kesha filed a lawsuit against Dr. Luke alleging that he had sexually abused her in 2005 and seeking to be released from contractual obligations to continue working with him. On the same day, Dr. Luke filed his own lawsuit against Kesha for defamation, based on statements she had made in anticipation of suing him, in her sexual assault lawsuit against him, and in defending against his defamation related allegations against her. Under New York law, statements made in litigation or in anticipation of litigation are protected by absolute privileges and therefore cannot form the basis of a defamation lawsuit. However, a New York state court allowed Dr. Luke’s defamation lawsuit against Kesha to proceed to trial, holding that a jury needed to decide whether Kesha’s “real” motivation for alleging that Dr. Luke sexually assaulted her was to get out of her contract with him. According to the court, if that was the case, then her statements would fall under a so-called “sham” exception to New York’s protections against defamation liability.
NWLC’s amicus brief explains that survivors of sexual abuse frequently face retaliation, including in the form of retaliatory defamation lawsuits, and that fear of retaliation deters many survivors from coming forward. It also points out that New York law provides important protections for sexual abuse survivors from the tremendous emotional and financial costs of defending against a retaliatory defamation lawsuit, and that the court cannot create illegal and harmful exceptions to these protections.
Snyder-Hill, Et Al. V. The Ohio State University and Moxley, Et. Al. V. The Ohio State University (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted drafted by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) in support of Plaintiff-Appellants. This case involves an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in which the court granted The Ohio State University’s motion to dismiss the appellant’s Title IX claims on the grounds that they are barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, the court ruled that the appellants knew or should have known that they suffered sexual abuse during Dr. Strauss’s medical examinations at the time or shortly thereafter. In so ruling, the court rejected the appellants’ arguments that they were not aware that the treatments were abuse because the complaint contains assertions that appellants were uncomfortable with the examinations and discussed the discomfort with their teammates. The amicus brief urges the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the district court’s ruling. The brief outlines the ways in which sexual abuse permeates campuses across the country and why sexual assault victims may fail to recognize conduct as assaultive. Namely, Amici notes that social cues from authority figures as well as the culture of college athletics serves as a barrier to recognizing certain behavior as sexual assault.
Adams v. School Bd. Of St. Johns County (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted on behalf of amici curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellee, who is a transgender boy fighting for his right to use the same restroom as other boys after Defendant-Appellant’s policy barred him from doing so. The amicus brief makes three main arguments in support of Drew’s constitutional rights to use the restroom that aligns with his gender identity. The first argument is that the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX prohibit discrimination against transgender students. The second argument addresses the Board’s contention that permitting transgender students to use the restroom corresponding to their gender identity destroys the existence of single-sex restrooms. The brief refutes this argument by simply stating that “transgender boys are boys,” and explaining that “a transgender person uses a school restroom the same way as a cisgender person: ‘by entering a stall and closing the door.’” The third argument refutes the Board’s argument that its policy promotes safety and privacy. The brief explains that the Board’s explanation that girls need a private space to “refresh her make up” and “talk to other girls” is anachronistic and based on stereotypes about who needs protection. The brief goes on to share statistics about the mental toll and level of violence that policies similar to the Board’s have on transgender students before concluding that the 11th Circuit panel should affirm the prior judgment.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (U.S. Supreme Court)
The WBA was co-lead on this joint amicus brief, submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. More than 30 organizations of women lawyers and future legal professionals, led by three notable U.S. organizations of women lawyers, submitted an amicus brief in support of respondents in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which could overturn Roe v. Wade and the almost 50 years of constitutional jurisprudence guaranteeing reproductive freedom to women.
Led by Women Lawyers On Guard, National Association of Women Lawyers, and the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and submitted by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP as counsel for amici, the brief lays out what is at stake if the Supreme Court overturns or weakens Roe. Women and their families, including women attorneys, have relied heavily on the constitutional guarantee of the ability to decide whether to have an abortion when exercising autonomy over their lives, health, families and futures. Loss of the rights guaranteed by Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey would decimate women lawyers’ ability to advance their careers and achieve gender parity in the legal field.
Jane Roe v. U.S. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to a brief drafted on behalf of amici curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellant, who is a former assistant federal defender forced to resign after facing sex-based harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The brief, supported by Legal Momentum, the National Women’s Law Center, and The Purple Campaign, argues that the District Court erroneously dismissed Ms. Roe’s Equal Protection claim for sex-based discrimination. The brief also highlights that the Judiciary has a history of, and continues to have, inadequate safeguards and processes to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The brief promotes adequate protections for the federal judiciary’s workforce from sex-based harassment and discrimination. This is important to the WBA and its members, as this issue directly and indirectly affects our industry and trustworthiness in the legal system.
This case involves a former research and writing attorney for a federal public defender’s office, Jane Roe, who was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation between 2017 and 2019. She was subjected to harassment by the First Assistant to the Public Defender, who paid excessive and unwelcomed attention to her, singled her out to be his mentee, assigned her almost exclusively to his cases, stalked her, recruited other employees to eavesdrop on her, made demeaning jokes about her, and sent her harassing emails. Ms. Roe first reported the harassment to the Public Defender and then to the Administrative Office Fair Employment Opportunity Officer, following both the informal and formal avenues pursuant to the Fourth Circuit’s internal complaint process called the Consolidated Equal Employment Opportunity and Employment Dispute Resolution (“EDR”) Plan. The Public Defender mishandled Ms. Roe’s complaint, however, evidenced by the First Assistant’s knowledge that Ms. Roe had filed a complaint and resulting in retaliation. Retaliatory actions included continued harassment, Ms. Roe’s placement on administrative leave for six months while the investigation into her complaint remained outstanding, movement to a utility closet converted into an office, and denied promotions and transfers. After no adequate remedy to protect Ms. Roe from further harassment and retaliation was offered through the EDR Plan, Ms. Roe resigned.
Ms. Roe filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in March 2020, naming defendants (i.e., those who participated in the EDR Plan) in their individual and official capacities. Ms. Roe’s complaint alleged four counts—violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, violation of the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C § 1985, and neglect to prevent conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
Ms. Roe’s Equal Protection Clause claim presented a matter of first impression for the Fourth Circuit. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit was deciding for the first time whether a Title VII theory of discrimination on the basis of sex states a claim for discrimination on the basis of sex under the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The Fourth Circuit held that it does not, and this holding is the focus of the brief, as explained below.
The District Court dismissed all four counts, granting both the individual capacity defendants’ and official capacity defendants’ motions to dismiss, and entered judgment for defendants. Ms. Roe then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Ms. Roe filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit in March 2021.
Crisitello v. St. Theresa School (Supreme Court of New Jersey)
The WBA signed on to a brief prepared by Lowenstein Sandler on behalf of the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) in support of Plaintiff-Respondent.
The facts underlying this case involve Plaintiff-Respondent, Victoria Crisitello, whose employment as an art teacher was terminated by her religious employer, St. Theresa School, a Catholic elementary school within the Archdiocese of Newark, because she became pregnant while not married. The School’s principal learned that Ms. Crisitello was pregnant after the principal asked Ms. Crisitello to teach more art classes, and Ms. Crisitello said she would do so only if she received a pay increase because she was pregnant. Two weeks later, the principal terminated Ms. Crisitello’s employment and explained that it was because she was pregnant and unmarried, which she claimed was in violation of the School’s policies.
Ms. Crisitello thereafter filed a claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) for discrimination based on pregnancy and marital status. The School has defended itself by invoking the ministerial exception to excuse its employment action against Ms. Crisitello’s. Specifically, the School relies on its Faculty Handbook and related policies that view all its teachers, regardless of whether they engage in religious instruction, as “assist[ing] schoolchildren develop spiritually and morally,” which the School reasons makes all employees “ministers.”
The Superior Court of New Jersey for Union County twice granted the School’s motions for summary judgment, and the Appellate Division reversed each of these decision on appeal. The Appellate Division’s most recent decision found that the ministerial exception did not apply because Ms. Crisitello’s core duties as a lay teacher were not comparable to that of a religious institution’s “ministers.” The School filed a Petition, which the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted. The amicus brief supports Ms. Crisitello.
The brief explains that the ministerial exception, as applied in both federal and state courts, is narrowly interpreted due to its incongruity with governmental and societal interests in eradicating discrimination and protecting historically vulnerable employees from harm.
Morgan, et al. v. U.S. Soccer Federation (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to a brief prepared by Selendy & Gay, PLLC on behalf of the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) in support of Plaintiff-Appellants. This case involves claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII, brought by professional soccer players on the United States Women’s National Team (USWNT) against the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF). The USSF is the governing body over both men’s and women’s soccer at the international, professional, and amateur levels, including overseeing both the USWNT and the United States Men’s National Team (USMNT). Both the USWNT and the USMNT entered into collective bargaining agreements with USSF that dictate the players’ compensation.
The USWNT claims that USSF discriminated against them by paying them a lower rate of pay than their male counterparts on the USMNT. The USWNT filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Each party moved for judgment as a matter of law, and the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of USSF.
The USWNT is appealing the District Court’s summary judgment decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The amicus brief argues not only that the District Court’s opinion is contrary to the EPA and Title VII, but also provides context surrounding the broader issue of women’s pay equity across both the athletic industry and the national labor market overall.
Darcy Corbitt, et al., v. Hon. Hal Taylor, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Alabama law Enforcement Agency, et al. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit)
The WBA signed on to a brief prepared by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) in support of Plaintiff-Appellees. This case involves an appeal from the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Alabama in which the court ruled that the Alabama’s Law Enforcement Agency’s (ALEA) policy (Policy Order 63) requiring proof of gender reassignment surgery before they alter the sex designation on their driver’s license was unconstitutional.
Specifically, the court ruled that by making surgery a requirement before an applicant can change the sex designation on their driver’s license, the policy necessarily classifies by sex and is therefore subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The court went on to state that Alabama’s justifications for the sex-based policy were formulated post hoc and the insufficiently tailored to advancing important governmental interests.
The ALEA is appealing the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and has also sought to argue that race-based affirmative action should also be called into question given the lower court’s rejection of the state’s sex-based justifications. The amicus brief urges the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the district court’s ruling.
Balow, et al. v. Michigan State University, et al. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to Simpson Thacher’s brief in a case that deals with Title IX’s equal opportunities requirement that can be satisfied by offering athletic participation opportunities to men and women “in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.” The brief highlights, with statistics, the ongoing disproportionality in athletic opportunities between men and women in sports despite the enactment of Title IX. It notes that participation in sports provides a number of benefits for women and girls, including higher levels of graduation, grades, scores on standardized tests, employment along with better self-esteem and physical health.
Hamilton, et al. v. Dallas County (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to a brief prepared by Katz, Marshall & Banks LLP, with the National Women’s Law Center and the ACLU as co-signatories. The Plaintiffs in this case are women who work as Detention Service Officers at the Dallas County Jail and have filed suit because the County has implemented a policy that allows male detention officers to take weekends off, but denies female officers this same—almost universal—employment term and privilege, limiting them to only weekdays or partial weekends off. Plaintiffs challenged what the County has admitted is a “gender-based” policy in district court, arguing it is a clear cut violation of Title VII and the Texas Employment Discrimination Act.
B.R. v. F.C.S.B (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center brief in support of a student survivor against her school. “B.R.” was 12 years old when she was repeatedly sexually harassed, including raped, tortured, and threatened with death by her classmates. Although she repeatedly requested protection, school officials ignored her and blamed her for her own mistreatment. When B.R. was 20, she filed a lawsuit against her school and former classmates alleging Title IX and other violations under the pseudonym “Jane Doe”. The district court ruled in favor of B.R. and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that (i) B.R.’s failure to obtain permission from the court before filing under a pseudonym was not a jurisdictional defect and (ii) her amended complaint related back to the date of her original complaint for purposes of statute of limitations. Defendants appealed on both of these issues and have also asserted that B.R. is subject to Virginia’s general statute of limitations for personal injury (2 years) rather than its specific statute of limitations for child sexual abuse (20 years).
Castañon v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court)
The WBA signed on to a brief prepared by Hunton Andrews Kurth in support of the Plaintiffs, who seek to secure the right to full voting representation in Congress for American citizens living in the District of Columbia. The brief alleges that the continued denial of voting representation to District of Columbia residents violates: (i) the Equal Protection Clause, (ii) Due Process, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), and (iii) the First Amendment right of association, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018). Plaintiffs in this case sought declaratory and any necessary injunctive relief to secure the right to full Congressional voting representation for District of Columbia residents.
Chase v. Nodine’s Smokehouse, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center brief in support of the Plaintiff-Appellee. This is an important case to assert the rights of survivors of sexual assault, particularly those who are low-wage workers, to fair, impartial treatment both in the workplace and when reporting sexual assault to the police.
Cochran v. Gresham et al., Cochran v. Philbrick et al., and Arkansas v. Gresham et al. (U.S. Supreme Court)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center brief in support of Plaintiffs-Respondents. These cases involve challenges to HHS’ approval of Medicaid demonstration projects in Arkansas and New Hampshire that impose work requirements as a condition for receiving Medicaid benefits, among other coverage changes. The circuit and district courts below held that HHS’ approval of the demonstration projects was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to consider that the projects will result in a loss of health coverage, which is directly at odds with the principal purpose of the Medicaid Act.
Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International (10th Cir.)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center brief in support of Plaintiff-Appellee. This case concerns the ministerial exception against civil rights claims.
Hecox v. Little (D. Idaho)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center brief in support of the plaintiff. This case takes on Title IX arguments concerning an Idaho law (H.B. 500) that bars all women and girls who are transgender, and some intersex women and girls, from participating on girls and women’s school sports teams.
Kadel, et al. v. North Carolina State Health Plan, et al. (4th Cir.)
The WBA signed on to the brief on behalf of Harvard Law School’s Center for Health Law & Policy Innovation and the Quinnipiac University School of Law Legal Clinic in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. This case concerns North Carolina’s exclusion of transition-related care in its state employee health plan. Plaintiffs include several current and former state employees and their children who were denied coverage under the plan for medically necessary health care because they are transgender.
Sagaille v. Carrega, et al. (N.Y. 1st Dep’t)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center brief in support of Defendant-Appellant. The brief focuses on the pervasiveness of sexual assault and harassment and the problems survivors face when reporting incidents using powerful statistics. The brief also notes that sexual assault by government officials is a common problem. It also stresses that New York State and City have taken actions to address underreporting and argues that this Court’s ruling should align with those protections.
Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al. (U.S.)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center brief in support of Respondents. The brief focuses on: “(1) how reversing Smith would unleash further sex discrimination, and (2) the fact that prohibiting sex discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation, is a compelling state interest and thus survives strict scrutiny.” It notes why religiously-based exceptions to neutral and generally applicable laws would result in further discrimination against women.
Pambakian v. Blatt, et al. (9th Cir.)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center and the American Association for Justice’s brief in support of Plaintiff-Appellant, requesting the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims.
Peltier, et al v. Charter Day School, Inc., et al. (4th Cir.)
The WBA signed on to the National Women’s Law Center’s brief in support of Plaintiffs Appellees, requesting the Fourth Circuit to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Appellees’ Title IX claim. Appellees are three female students at a public charter school in Brunswick County, North Carolina, who are challenging the school’s dress code requiring girls to wear skirts to school and prohibiting them from wearing pants or shorts (“Forced Skirts” requirement or policy). Appellants include the school, Board of Trustees, and other affiliates. The students complain that the requirement inhibits them from playing freely, feeling comfortable, and subjects them to different standards than the male students at this school.
Francis v. Kings Park Manor (Second Circuit)
The WBA signed on to the brief prepared by National Women’s Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the New York Civil Liberties Union in support of Plaintiff-Appellant. Although this case deals with harassment based on race, the amicus brief argues that the holding in this case will necessarily affect the rights of women because courts will interpret any standard established under the FHA to apply to all types of harassment or discrimination under the FHA. Therefore, if the court does not reverse the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims based on racial discrimination and harassment, a court might similarly dismiss a woman’s claims based on sexual discrimination and harassment.
California v. Texas (Second Circuit)
This case is a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a number of states who sued the federal government in 2018, arguing that when Congress reduced the tax associated with the ACA’s individual mandate to zero in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), Congress implicitly revoked the ACA in its entirety. Because the federal government has refused to defend the ACA, a number of states have been permitted to intervene in the case to defend the ACA. This brief, filed by the National Women’s Law Center, National Partnership for Women & Families, Black Women’s Health Imperative, and American Medical Women’s Association, addressed the constitutionality of the ACA. The issue of access to healthcare is directly related to WBA’s overall mission of supporting the right of all women to be free from discrimination on the basis of gender or sex.
Contraceptive Mandate Injunction Case (Third Circuit)
The WBA signed on to the brief prepared by the American Association of University Women and Service Employees International Union. The issue is the administration’s exemptions rules for contraceptive coverage, which were enjoined by the Third Circuit in 2019. The injunction was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Richard W. Deotte, et al. v. Alex M. Aazar, II, et al and State of Nevada (5th Circuit Court of Appeals)
June Medical v. Russo (U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, is unconstitutional.)
In June 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed abortion rights in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, striking down Louisiana state law that imposed unconstitutional requirements limiting abortion access. This was an important decision, and the right outcome. The WBA supports efforts to enhance women’s health and safety, including access to abortion care. Read our Issue Statement on Reproductive Rights here.
La Clínica de la Raza v. Trump, (Northern District of California)
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes ensuring the right to be free from discrimination based on gender or sex and the full enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination.
Kesterson v. Kent State University
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that protecting women’s rights under Title IX to be free from discrimination by educational institutions is consistent with the WBA’s mission.
Pennsylvania v. President of the United States (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that when women have the means to plan whether and how to have a family, they can better invest in their own careers and their country.
Castañon v. United States
Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes the District of Columbia should have democratic representation within our country’s most fundamental government institutions, and supports the effort to ensure that D.C. residents are allowed to elect voting representatives to Congress.
Richard W. Deotte et al. v. Alex M. Azar II et al. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas)
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that when women have the means to plan whether and how to have a family, they can better invest in their own careers and their country.
California v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that when women have the means to plan whether and how to have a family, they can better invest in their own careers and their country.
Jane Doe v. University of Kentucky
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that protecting women’s rights under Title IX to be free from discrimination by educational institutions is consistent with the WBA’s mission.
California v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al (9th Circuit Court of Appeals)
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that when women have the means to plan whether and how to have a family, they can better invest in their own careers and their country.
Pennsylvania v. President of the United States (3rd Circuit Court of Appeals)
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that when women have the means to plan whether and how to have a family, they can better invest in their own careers and their country.
Adams v. St John’s County School Board
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that discrimination against transgender people constitutes unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex, and further, that reinforcing the notion that there are “biological differences” between men and women leads to disparate treatment based on outdated stereotypes of women.
Jane Doe 2 v. Trump
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that discrimination against transgender people constitutes unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex, and further, that reinforcing the notion that there are “biological differences” between men and women leads to disparate treatment based on outdated stereotypes of women.
Pennsylvania v. President of the United States (3rd Circuit)
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that when women have the means to plan whether and how to have a family, they can better invest in their own careers, their communities, and their country.
Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. The WBA believes that when women have the means to plan whether and how to have a family, they can better invest in their own careers, their communities, and their country.
Tudor v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes women’s right to be free from discrimination based on their sex.
California v Ross, City of San Jose v Ross, La Union del Pueblo Entero v Ross
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes ensuring the accurate apportioning of political power and allocation of federal funding, so that women are able to access government services and the political process as is their right under the laws of this country.
Karnoski v. Trump
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes the right to be free from discrimination based on gender or sex.
Parker v. Reema Consulting Service, Inc.
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes women’s right to be free from discrimination based on their sex.
Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc.
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes women’s right to equal pay and to be free from discrimination based on their sex. Gender discrimination in pay can affect women’s financial well-being, career and social advancement, political advancement, and equality in general.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v Harris
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes women’s access to healthcare services in a timely, without prejudice, well-informed and high-quality manner, regardless of whether they are seeking an abortion, family planning services, prenatal care, or counseling. Lack of access can affect women’s financial well-being, job security, educational attainment, and future opportunity.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that advancing the interest of women lawyers and our fellow female employees includes the support of protections in place to prevent discrimination.
Amicus Brief in Support of Motions for Preliminary Injunction in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Donald Trump, Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB (EDPA)
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes women’s access to healthcare services, with a particular interest in ensuring that women receive full access to contraceptive coverage. Lack of access can affect women’s financial well-being, job security, educational attainment, and future opportunity.
For more information please read WBA Signs on to Amicus Briefs in Masterpiece Cakeshop & Pennsylvania v. Trump in the November/December 2017 issue of Raising the Bar.
National Women’s Law Center Amicus Brief for Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights
WBA Statement: Founded in 1917, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) is one of the oldest and largest voluntary bar associations in metropolitan Washington, DC. Today, as in 1917, we continue to pursue our mission of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession; promoting the administration of justice; advancing and protecting the interests of women lawyers; promoting their mutual improvement; and encouraging a spirit of friendship among our members. We believe that the administration of justice includes the full enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination. The WBA has participated in cases before this Court involving the protection of women’s rights.
For more information please read WBA Signs on to Amicus Briefs in Mastepiece Cakeshop & Pennsylvania v. Trump in the November/December 2017 issue of Raising the Bar.