Determined whether the AFL-CIO violated Title VII by compensating employees in predominantly-female jobs at a lower rate than employees in predominantly-male jobs.

Determined the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, a state law that imposed waiting periods and required the dissemination of information concerning the risks of abortion to women seeking the procedure.

Considered the constitutionality of a state ban on same-sex marriage.

Determined the right to sue a state university under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment for violating the Equal Pay Act.

Determined the right of abuse victim to leave work to obtain protection orders against an abuser.

Determined whether an employer violates Title VII when, in making post-Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) eligibility determinations for pension and other benefits, the employer does not restore service credit lost by female employees when they took pregnancy leaves under pre-PDA policies.

Determines whether a school's policy that prohibits students from wearing certain breast cancer awareness bracelets is based on stereotypes concerning the men and women's roles.

Concerned the application of the doctrine of parental tort immunity in the case of incest.

Determined whether New York City's physical exam for firefighting discriminated against women applicants for firefighting positions.

Determined the ability of plaintiffs to use a federal law that prohibits state officials from violating constitutional or statutory rights to sue the state for failing to provide child support enforcement services mandated under federal law.

Addressed whether state-supported shelters for domestic violence that do not admit adult men violate equal protection or other rights of men.

Determined whether municipalities can be held liable for hiring employees who injure someone.

Determined the international application of Title VII to prevent employment discrimination in American companies abroad.

Determined whether the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to revoke the membership of a scout leader for being gay despite state law prohibiting such discrimination in places of public accommodation.

Concerned the right of victim to defend herself against eviction from subsidized housing after a criminal act by her abusive ex-boyfriend.

This lawsuit challenged the New York City Police Department’s policy and practice of refusing to arrest men who beat their wives. It also charged family court clerks with refusing to allow battered women to file petitions for Orders of Protection against their husbands.

Determined whether an employer violated federal anti-discrimination law when it responded to an employee's sexual harassment complaint by transferring her to a less desirable job and later suspending her without pay for over a month.

Determined whether a family court judge erred in refusing to consider whether a protective order could exclude a batterer from a home.

Determined whether state statutes that place greater obligations on employers conflict with the federal Pregnancy Leave Act.

The plaintiff alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a junior high school teacher for approximately two years. She sued her school under Title IX and various school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations.

The Inter-American Court (IACHR) handed down a ruling overturning the Chilean Supreme Court’s 2004 decision denying Judge Karen Atala custody of her children in favor of her ex-husband.

Determined whether a victim of domestic violence can sue police officers for failing to enforce an order of protection.

Legal Momentum supports Appellee in seeking affirmance of the district court's decision that private plaintiffs can obtain equitable relief under RICO.

Determined whether a city ordinance that prohibited targeted residential picketing, which was enacted based on extensive evidence of intrusive picketing outside homes of abortion providers, violated the First Amendment rights of the picketers.

Amicus brief in support of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s appeal of a decision of the Superior Court Panel vacating the sexual assault conviction of three defendants.

Determined whether Title IX covers athletic associations that do not directly receive federal funding, but exercise significant control over federally funded school athletic programs.

Determined the statute of limitations for torts based on sexual abuse in Montana.

Determined whether workers who provide information during an employer’s investigation of a sexual harassment or other discrimination complaint are protected from retaliation by federal law.

Concerned the right to sue for civil remedies under VAWA and the constitutional power of Congress to enact VAWA.

Determined whether the NCAA is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Determined whether allowing victim's statements made to 911 or to police to be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions where victim does not testify, including domestic violence prosecutions, violates criminal defendant's rights under Confrontation Clause of U.S. Constitution.

Determined the right to sue a parish priest and diocese for sexual misconduct and demand civil remedies under VAWA.

Determined whether a school can be sued for sex discrimination when it fails to address peer-to-peer sexual harassment.

Concerned whether a school violated the federal Equal Access Act by denying a East High Gay/Straight Alliance permission to meet on school premises.

Determined whether the EEOC has the authority to pursue individual remedies in court when the individual employee has signed a mandatory arbitration agreement.

Determined the use of the discovery rule to extend the statute of limitations in childhood incest cases.

Concerned challenging UT Austin's admission plan. The amicus brief was for respondent UT Austin, arguing for the Court to uphold UT Austin’s admission plan and prior Court opinions holding the educational benefits of diversity are a compelling interest permitting colleges and universities to use in narrowly-tailored individualized review of applicants.

Determined whether money damages are available under Title IX.

Determined whether it is constitutional to use federal power to compel the State of Texas to provide Medicaid to indigent children under the Medicaid Act.

G.G., a transgender highschool student, sued the Gloucester County School Board for a Title IX violation, after the board instituted a policy designed to prevent him from using boys' restrooms.

Determined whether a Suffolk County Park Police Department policy that penalizes pregnant women is discriminatory.

Description: Determined whether a defendant forfeits the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right where defendant’s wrongful act caused witness’s unavailability.

Challenging denial of spousal health benefits by employer on basis of same-sex marriage.

Considered whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts Constitution, protecting freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into protected areas of life and freedom to partake in state benefits.

Determined whether an entire university is subject to Title IX if only one particular university program receives federal funds.

Outlined the definition of a gender-discriminatory hostile work environment under Title VII.

The case concerns whether long-term home health care workers employed by third-party agencies are entitled to the federal minimum wage and overtime. The health care industry has challenged Congress’s and the Department of Labor’s efforts to provide overtime and sick leave to home health care workers, who are overwhelmingly women of color and live below the poverty line, even though they work full time. The industry should not be permitted to prevent these women from rising out of poverty.

Determined the definition of extreme cruelty under the VAWA provision that protects immigrant victims from deportation and return to their abuser.

Determined the constitutionality of a Colorado statute that protects women’s access to reproductive health services by making it unlawful for an individual to knowingly come closer than eight feet to a person within 100 feet of a health care facility, without first getting that person’s consent.

Determined the constitutionality of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law, or FACE, which prohibits obstructing ingress and egress at reproductive health facilities.

Addressed the right of domestic violence victims to protection from employment discharge under North Carolina public policy.

In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional right of immigrant parents to care for, have custody of, and control over their children. The Court ruled that Maria Luis, a Guatemalan woman, should not lose custody of her children because she was deported from the United States.

Concerned a wife's right to her husband's pension upon divorce even if he lost his job due to a restraining order she obtained to protect herself against his abuse.

Determined whether an employer violates federal anti-discrimination law (Title VII) by excluding contraceptives from a prescription drug plan that covers other prescriptions.

Determined whether domestic violence survivors who are discharged from work for reasons related to abuse are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Determined the parental rights of a non-biological lesbian co-parent after she and the biological co-parent are no longer partners.

Determined whether Arizona State University is liable under Title IX for the rape of a student by another student who was known to be a serial sexual harasser.

Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) for the primary purpose of preventing children from viewing indecent or otherwise harmful material online. The legislators emphasized that its goal was “to help encourage the private sector to protect our children from being exposed to obscene and indecent material on the Internet” by removing liability for Internet companies that “make a good faith effort to edit the smut from their systems.” The First Circuit Court of Appeals—like several other courts—interpreted the law as providing complete immunity to websites that solicit and profit from illegal content so long as the legal claims against them bear some relationship to online content provided by a third party. Because Backpage’s “adult” services section contains advertisements written by paid users, the First Circuit held that the site was protected from liability for aiding the Petitioners’ sexual exploitation as minors, even though the Petitioners persuasively alleged that Backpage took an active role in shaping the content of the ads and deliberately tailored its website to “make sex trafficking easier.” This sweeping interpretation  is not what Congress intended when it enacted legislation seeking to encourage website operators to behave responsibly.

Determined whether the U.S. government violated international human rights treaties by failing to protect an individual from – and provide a remedy for – domestic violence, when local law enforcement failed to do so.

Addresses whether tax credits mandated under the ACA apply in states that did not establish an ACA health insurance marketplace—an "American Health Benefit Exchange."

Determined whether an employer's conduct has to be "egregious" or "outrageous" in order to sustain an award of punitive damages under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Determined the right of an employee to sue her employer for pay discrimination if she does not bring her claim within 180 days of her employer's pay decision.

Determined that the requirements for the timely filing of federal employment discrimination claims are regulated by the facts of the case, not a bright-line rule.

Determined whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the Oregon Constitution.

Challenged anti-immigration laws in Hazelton, Pennsylvania.

At issue is delays in the conciliation process for employment discrimination complaints. Women in non-traditional jobs will be particularly harmed by the delays associated with opening conciliation to judicial intervention. Judicial second-guessing of EEOC confidential conciliation deters claims and stymies systemic reform. Congress’ empowerment of the EEOC to pursue claims in its own name and to effect systemic reform without exposing victims is particularly important in non-traditional fields, where retaliation is especially dangerous and female workers are often isolated. Petitioner’s proposals directly subvert the EEOC’s statutorily mandated role in Title VII’s enforcement scheme, exposing women to retaliation and delaying access to justice. Judicial examination of pre-adjudicatory conciliation undermines judicial economy, a crucial stated goal of such conciliation.

Women in blue-collar, non-traditional jobs face employment barriers more perilous than the glass ceiling, most notably severe sexual harassment and the threat that gender discrimination will escalate into workplace violence. Non-traditional industries have both low numbers of female employees and some of the highest rates of gender discrimination. In some male-dominated occupations, women experience levels of discrimination more than three times greater than the national average. Worse still, many non-traditional jobs require collaboration among coworkers to prevent significant safety risks; in these workplaces, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation may have potentially lethal consequences. Women working in these fields need the promise of confidentiality and systemic reform that Title VII specifically directs the EEOC to provide.

Determined whether it is constitutional, in Maryland, for insurance companies to charge different rates based on gender.

Determined the right to sue for civil rights remedies under VAWA and the power of Congress to enact VAWA. The decision was overruled, in part, by the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Morrison.

Concerned punitive damages in a sexual harassment case.

Determined whether the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state from excluding men from a public nursing college.

Whether policy required an exception to the "proportionate share" of damages rule in cases of domestic violence where the police fail to act resulting in harm to the victim.

Addressed a challenge to the three-part participation test for compliance with Title IX promulgated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

Determined whether the New Mexico Constitution's Equal Rights Amendment prohibited a state ban on Medicaid funding for medically necessary abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy was life threatening, on ground that no medically necessary procedures for men were denied funding.

Challenged New York City’s Administration for Children Services’ practice of bringing child neglect proceedings against battered mothers on the basis of their having “allowed” their children to witness domestic violence or their having “engaged” in domestic violence simply by being a victim of domestic violence.

Determined whether New York’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims can be tolled due to psychological disability resulting from domestic abuse.

A class action lawsuit alleging that labor recruiters engage in sex discrimination against Mexican women who they are placing as non-immigrant guestworkers to work in the United States.

Determined whether Title VII's prohibition against workplace sexual harassment applies to same-sex sexual harassment.

Determined the constitutionality of New York State's anti-stalking statute.

Determined whether an employer who refuses to accept applications from women with pre-school age children violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

This case was brought by Planned Parenthood and four doctors against anti-choice organizations and individuals for threats under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Determined the constitutionality of a state regulation that denied Medicaid coverage of medically necessary or therapeutic abortions except in cases where the pregnancy was life threatening or resulted from rape or incest.

Determined the evidence standard for sex discrimination in employment (Title VII) cases, and resolved whether a promotion based on sex stereotyping is in violation of Title VII.

For reversal of the district court decision granting defendants-appellees summary judgment. Appellant had sued regarding false charges of theft after she reported a robbery and rape. The brief argues the police had no probable cause for arrest, but instead based the charges on long-discredited beliefs about sexual assault. In its decision, the Court of Appeals found the District Court to be in error in granting summary judgment on the probable cause issue.

Determined the constitutionality of Florida's ban on Medicaid funding for abortion except in cases of rape or incest.

Determined whether a municipality can discard results from an otherwise valid civil service exam when the results of the exam unintentionally prevent the promotion of minority candidates.

Determined the constitutionality of California's one-year residency requirement before new Californians could receive full welfare benefits.

Determined the application of certain federal criminal statutes to violence and obstructive conduct aimed at abortion clinics, their patients and doctors.

Determined the right to sue under VAWA's civil rights remedy for nonphysical violence (e.g. threats and harassment).

Determined the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute that criminalized the performance of a wide range of abortion procedures, including the so-called "partial birth abortions."

Amici Curiae Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, The National Consumer Law Center, and Legal Momentum, et al, in support of respondent on writ of certiorari to the U. S. Court of Appeal sfor the Fifth Circuit. 

This brief focuses on two contemporary forms of housing discrimination that have had particularly devastating consequences: race discrimination in subprime mortgage lending and sex discrimination against victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Considered whether international norms may guide eligibility for immigration asylum.

Determined whether an organization is considered place of public accommodation when its purpose is to build relationships that would advance leadership skills, and therefore cannot discriminate on the basis of sex.

Prosecuting a stalker under VAWA for violating a restraining order against him and crossing state lines to access his victim.

Determined the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act's civil rights remedy.

Determined whether applying a housing complex's "zero tolerance for violence" policy by threatening a person with eviction for having been the victim of domestic violence unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex.

Determined evidence requirements to prove discriminatory intent in a prima facie discrimination case under Title VII for discrimination in promotion.

Determined whether the Lautenberg amendment applies to individuals convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" with "Recklessness" mens rea.

Determined whether Wal-Mart's female employees should be treated as a nationwide class in a Title VII suit against their employer.

Determined whether a viable fetus is a child for purposes of South Carolina's child abuse and child endangerment statute.

Determined the constitutionality of an Ohio law that placed restrictions on abortion after fetal viability.

Whether the history and Congressional Intent of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to treat pregnant women the same as other temporarily disabled workers.

Whether the history and Congressional Intent of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to treat pregnant women the same as other temporarily disabled workers.