WBA Amicus Brief Sign-ons

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 Womens 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.