Amicus Briefs
If you are being watched, leave now!
Through its litigation initiatives, Legal Momentum has made historic and enduring contributions to the rights and opportunities available to women. This is often accomplished through participation in cases as amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). Amici are groups or individuals who are not parties to the case but have particular expertise in the issues at its heart. They bring their expertise to the court in the form of an amicus brief to inform the court’s deliberations. Each year Legal Momentum writes and joins numerous amicus briefs in cases dealing with issues central to our mission.
-
Workplace Equality and Economic EmpowermentJoined Amicus Brief: Defendants Pacific Maritime Association, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, and International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 13 have historically kept longshore jobs closed to women, in part by refusing to comply with laws that ensure pregnant and postpartum women have access to the accommodations they need to perform their jobs and maintain their health. Plaintiffs Endanicha Bragg, Tracy Plummer, Marisol Romero, Kaiaunna Smith, Megan Russo-Kahn, and Clarissa Hernando Avila allege systematic denial of their rights to pregnancy and lactation accommodations.
-
Fairness in the CourtsJoined Amicus Brief: This case represents the most severe consequence of the gender prejudice and bias that continues to permeate the criminal justice system. Brenda Andrews received a capital murder conviction on the basis of primarily circumstantial evidence, with predominant themes of sex and adultery. The State painted Ms. Andrews as a “black widow” and tainted the proceedings with evidence of her clothing, her demeanor, and her sex life before, during, and after her marriage. None of this information related to the elements of the crime, yet all of it capitalized on the bias of women in the criminal justice system. All of this prejudicial evidence ultimately rendered Ms. Andrew’s trial fundamentally unfair.
-
Reproductive RightsJoined Amicus Brief: Over twenty years ago, the FDA approved mifepristone. The approval is based on substantial evidence of its safety and efficacy for use in early termination of pregnancy. The Fifth Circuit’s decision ignores the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community that medication abortion is one of the safest medication regimens in the United States and around the world. Restrictions on mifepristone would have widespread detrimental consequences. Even if individuals live in states where abortion remains legal and protected, they could find themselves unable to access mifepristone in a timely manner. This would jeopardize the health and autonomy of those denied care. Clinics and providers could also find themselves unable to effectively provide competent and much-needed medical care.
-
Reproductive RightsJoined Amicus Brief: Congress created the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure that Medicare-funded hospitals would, at the very least, provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” for “any” patient with an “emergency medical condition,” regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Emergency departments are required to stabilize pregnant patients in labor, pregnant patients who have emergency conditions unrelated to labor, and patients who need emergency treatment to prevent pregnancy loss. Idaho raises the theory that it has the power to carve protections for pregnant people out of federal law. This would deepen the United State’s maternal health crisis, particularly for Black, Indigenous, immigrant, rural, and low-income communities.
-
Violence Against Women and GirlsDomestic Violence and ChildrenJoined Amicus Brief: This case raises important issues about the negative impacts Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) have on non-respondent survivors and their children. ACS inspections represent a form of double victimization, inflicting invasive and demeaning intrusions that amplify the stress experienced by survivors of domestic violence and their families.
-
Violence Against Women and GirlsAuthored Amicus Brief: Sex-based harassment is pervasive, especially in university research labs, but vastly underreported, often due to fear of retaliation. Reported harassers are increasingly using defamation lawsuits to retaliate against their victims when they speak out, or to silence their victims from speaking out in the first place. Under current law, employers are required to investigate claims of sexual harassment, and many employees are mandated to report harassment. However, if employers can be sued for undertaking a legally required investigation, there is no incentive to conduct one.
-
Workplace Equality and Economic EmpowermentJoined Amicus Brief: Plaintiff Schulman has alleged that Defendants Zoetis, Inc. and Zoetis Reference Labs, LLC violated the Equal Pay Act (EPA) when they paid her male colleagues vastly more than they paid her, for equal work for which she was far more experienced. The Defendants have alleged that the male employees’ pay was based on the pay they received at their prior place of employment. However, using prior pay to set an employee’s future salary contributes to the perpetuation of the gender pay gap and runs counter to the Equal Pay Act’s goal of eradicating gender-based wage differentials.
-
Workplace Equality and Economic EmpowermentSex-Based ClassificationJoined Amicus Brief: In its April 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reminds employers to not disrespect the basic humanity of their employees and not allow coworkers to do so either. This request extends to all workers of every color, creed, and sex. Plaintiffs, State of Texas and The Heritage Foundation, have asked the Court to single out transgender and nonbinary workers for less treatment, denying them the same basic respect and humanity afforded to their coworkers.
-
Violence Against Women and GirlsDomestic Violence and Children
-
Violence Against Women and GirlsAuthored Amicus Brief: Legal Momentum’s amicus brief, drafted in coordination with the National Crime Victim Law Institute, AEquitas, and the Complex Appellate Litigation Group, explains the real harm caused by such threats to victims of stalking and intimate partner violence and the dynamics of non-physical forms of gender-based violence, including technology-facilitated abuse, that make clear an objective test that takes into account the full context of such threats is necessary and supported by social science research.
