Education
If you are being watched, leave now!
-
Concerned whether a school violated the federal Equal Access Act by denying a East High Gay/Straight Alliance permission to meet on school premises.
-
Concerning whether 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.
-
Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit sex discrimination against transgender individuals based on nonconformity to gender stereotypes.
-
Determined whether Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination by federally funded educational institutions, precludes claims of unconstitutional gender discrimination in the schools.
-
Determined whether money damages are available under Title IX.
-
Determined the right to sue schools for teacher-to-student sexual harassment under Title IX.
-
Determined whether an entire university is subject to Title IX if only one particular university program receives federal funds.
-
Determined the constitutionality of affirmative action programs in publicly-funded schools and universities.
-
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.
-
Determined whether a person who is retaliated against for complaining of sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs may bring a lawsuit for damages under Title IX.
-
Concerned the trial court's decision to exclude football from its consideration of a Title IX case regarding the amount of money spent on men's and women's sports.
Pages
