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 the right to sue schools for peer-to-peer sexual harassment under Title IX.

Determined whether the District of Columbia's gun control laws banning private possession of handguns violate the Second Amendment.

Addressed the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act civil rights remedy. The decision was overruled, in part, by the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Morrison.

Determined whether it is proper for a a federal appeals court to overturn the jury verdict when a sexual harassment plaintiff has convinced a jury that she was subjected to a hostile environment in her workplace.

Determined the constitutionality under the First Amendment of a city ordinance restricting protester activity near health care facilities and houses of worship.

Determined whether an employer is liable under Title VII for the acts of an employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment.

Argue that UMW violated Title IX by taking no action to investigate cyber harassment on campus.

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 whether a criminal statute against same-sex sexual relations violated constitutional rights of lesbians and gay men.

Determined the constitutionality of a restriction imposed by Congress and the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) on the professional activities of groups that receive LSC funding.

Considered the constitutionality of New Jersey's ban on same sex marriage.

Determined the right to sue a university for expulsion in retaliation for complaining of sexual harassment under Title IX.

Concerned the right of a domestic violence victim to take leave from work for proceedings and medical care under California's domestic violence leave law and the Family Rights act.

Concerned sex discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act claims by female elevator mechanic denied equal job opportunities and subjected to sexual harassment by co-workers and supervisors.

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

Determined if the First Amendment justifies a commercial business’s refusal to serve a customer in a protected group.

Determined the Constitutionality under the First Amendment of state law that protected persons near reproductive health care facilities from unwanted approaches closer than six feet.

Determined whether it is constitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause, to enforce different requirements for citizenship on an out-of-wedlock child who is born abroad to a U.S. citizen, depending upon whether the U.S. citizen is the child's mother or father.

Amici Curiae Brief of Legal Voice, Legal Momentum, Montana NOW, Pennsylvania NOW, Women's Law Project, and Sexual Violence Law Center in the case of State of Montana v. Stacy Dean Rambold.

Determined the right of a homosexual student to sue for peer-to-peer sexual harassment under §1983 and the 14th Amendment.

Determined the constitutionality of enforcing the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to the states, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Determined whether it is constitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause, to enforce different requirements for citizenship on out-of-wedlock child who is born abroad to a U.S. citizen, depending upon whether the U.S. citizen is the child's mother or father.

Addressed the issue of contempt fines in the federal court order protecting women, doctors and clinic workers from anti-choice blockades and violence.

Determined whether it is constitutional to impose a requirement that an individual not procreate as a condition of probation, where violation of the condition would subject the person to imprisonment.

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 the right to unemployment benefits when a woman is forced to quit job due to domestic violence.

Concerned whether rape and attempted rape by a spouse can be considered "extreme cruelty" under VAWA's immigrant protection provisions.

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.

Ms. Tucker is appealing the Circuit Court of Cook County ruling, affirming the Chicago Housing Authority's decision to terminate her Housing Choice Section 8 Voucher, without consideration of the applicability of the Violence Against Women Act and Ms. Tucker's status as a victim of domestic violence.

Determined the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Morrison.

In October, 2013, Supreme Court heard arguments in U.S. vs. Castleman, for which Legal Momentum co-authored an amicus brief. The case centered on whether a gun trafficker who abused the mother of his child should be able to legally buy guns. The amicus brief urged the Supreme Court to uphold federal laws—and those state laws like Tennessee’s—that were enacted to ensure that domestic violence abusers are prohibited from possessing guns. In March, 2014, the Court decided to uphold the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act that prevent abusers from purchasing firearms. Justice Sotomayor cited information from Legal Momentum’s amicus brief in her majority opinion.

Determined whether a policy that prohibits potentially fertile and pregnant women from participating in occupations that could be detrimental to their reproductive capacities constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.

Determined whether a males-only admission policy at a state-run institution violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Determined the right to sue under Title VII for wrongful discharge when a woman is dismissed from employment because her batterer works in the same establishment and has threatened with violence if she is not fired.

Challenged the distinction between minor, or “de minimus,” and “classic” incidents of domestic violence.

Determined whether a city's failure to provide properly-sized protective clothing and its failure to provide adequate restrooms, showers and private changing facilities in firehouses, constitutes sex discrimination.

The brief argues that lower court committed legal error by failing to adequately consider the effects of domestic violence on the child victim when granting unsupervised visitation to Defendant-Appellee.

Determined an employee's ability to bring discrimination suit in court despite a mandatory arbitration clause in the union contract.

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

Addressed the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act civil rights remedy. The claim was later dismissed by the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Morrison.