Updated: January 22, 2012
Current and former female Wal-Mart employees continued their discrimination lawsuit against the company this week with the filing of an amended complaint in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas. The case, Odle, et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., represents a regional – Texas-only – effort to take on the retail giant after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June in Wal-Mart v. Dukes that female Wal-Mart employees could not band together in a national class-action lawsuit. The first regional complaint, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was filed in California in October. The complaint in Texas alleges widespread denial of equal pay and access to management promotions for female employees.
AAUW was disappointed by the Wal-Mart v. Dukes ruling and had provided support to the lead plaintiffs last spring through the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund. In September, the AAUW board voted to disburse more funds to defray costs involved in creating smaller class-action lawsuits. AAUW will continue supporting the lawyers and plaintiffs as they seek justice for all women workers at Wal-Mart stores.
AAUW strongly believes in protecting the rights of Americans to bring appropriate class-action suits against discriminatory employers. Such cases ensure that all affected workers can right the wrongs against them and stand together in the face of corporate misconduct. Sometimes, class actions are the only way to force a company to change its unfair practices. Class actions also serve as powerful deterrents to keep other employers from engaging in the same practices.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for January 20, 2012.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a joint appeal on cases pertaining to student speech on the internet and its relation to schools’ harassment and bullying policies. In Blue Mountain School District v. Synder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit decided that students who ridiculed their principals online could not be punished by school authorities because the speech was created off campus and did not substantially disrupt schools. The other case filed for appeal, Layshock v. Hermitage School District, involved a similar situation of a student mocking a principal through an online forum. The joint appeal stressed the perplexing nature of a situation where schools are obligated to protect students, teachers, and staff from online harassment without infringing on First Amendment rights.
AAUW supports policies and programs that promote youths’ social and emotional health and address relational aggression, bullying, and harassment to ensure their overall health, safety, and well-being. The inclusion of stronger policies to deter and address bullying and harassment (in person or online) will help to ensure a safe learning environment for all students.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for January 20, 2012.
The National Labor Relations Board ruled that an employer’s contractual ban on class and collective actions violates workers’ rights to engage in activities such as filing class or collective action regarding wages, hours, or working conditions. The labor board’s decision said that the ban by D.R. Horton, a nationwide homebuilding company, violated the National Labor Relations Act and constituted an unfair labor practice.
AAUW strongly believes in protecting the rights of Americans to bring class action against discriminatory employers. Such cases ensure that all affected workers can right the wrongs against them and stand together in the face of corporate misconduct. Sometimes, class actions are the only way to force a company to change its unfair practices. Class actions also serve as powerful deterrents to keep other employers from engaging in the same practices.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for January 13, 2012.
Last week, the Senate blocked the confirmation of two Obama administration appointees. Caitlin Halligan, who was slated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC, and Richard Cordray, who was to be the first director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, both failed to get the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. The Obama administration expressed its frustration following Cordray’s failed confirmation, stating that opposition to the nominees, both seen as highly qualified, “makes absolutely no sense.”
AAUW monitors the judicial nominations process because so many of our fundamental rights and liberties have been established and are protected by the federal courts. Our courts need judges who will uphold our constitutional values of liberty, equality, and justice for all. This is the best way to ensure that the clock is not turned back on decades of progress that has been achieved for women and girls.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for December 16, 2011.
Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of Caitlin Halligan, a former New York solicitor general, to a federal appeals court. Halligan received 54 votes, but not the 60 needed to break the Republicans’ filibuster. Republicans opposed Halligan because they said she has a record of advancing a social agenda through the courts. President Barack Obama condemned this type of use of a filibuster. Obama had nominated Halligan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
AAUW monitors the judicial nominations process because so many of our fundamental rights and liberties have been established and are protected by the federal courts. Our courts need judges who will uphold our constitutional values of liberty, equality, and justice for all. This is the best way to ensure that the clock is not turned back on decades of progress that has been achieved for women and girls.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for December 9, 2011.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the health care reform law has prompted some calls for Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan to step aside, citing bias and conflicts of interest. In light of this, a New York Times editorial advocated that the Supreme Court should adopt provisions applied to lower courts that require recusal when there is personal bias or other conflicts. The justices in the Supreme Court are currently free to decide if they want to withdraw from a case.
AAUW supports a fair, balanced and independent judiciary because so many of our fundamental rights and liberties have been established and are protected by the federal courts and Supreme Court precedents.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for December 2, 2011.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles struck down part of a North Carolina abortion law on Tuesday, saying the state cannot require abortion providers to show and discuss with pregnant women ultrasound images of the fetus. Eagles ruled that doctors and others challenging the antichoice law were likely to win on their contention that the provision violated their constitutional rights. The judge, however, left in place other portions of the law, including a provision requiring a 24-hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion.
AAUW supports the right of every woman to safe, accessible, affordable, and comprehensive family planning and reproductive health services. AAUW advocates for choice in the determination of one's reproductive life and increased access to health care and family planning services including expansion of patients' rights.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for October 28, 2011.
On Friday, a 2-to-1 ruling by a federal appeals court struck down Michigan’s 2006 ban on the consideration of race and gender in public university admissions and in government hiring. The court said that the voter-approved ban “unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.” Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, promised Friday that he would appeal the decision overturning the ban – known, misleadingly, as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative – through a formal request for rehearing by all 16 judges of the court. George B. Washington, however, who represented the coalition challenging the ban, noted that “this is a tremendous victory. We think we’ll win in the end, however many appeals there are.”
AAUW believes in a strong system of education that promotes gender fairness, equity, and diversity and advocates increased support for, and access to, higher education for women and other disadvantaged populations.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for October 7, 2011.
During the first week of the new term, two Supreme Court justices will testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the role of judges under the Constitution. Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia will attend the hearing at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, October 5, in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.
Meanwhile, the Senate agreed Monday to vote on 10 pending federal judicial nominations in the next two weeks. This announcement follows increasing pressure to end the vacancy crisis that currently persists in federal courts across the United States. There are now 115 existing or expected vacancies on the federal bench, 35 of which are considered judicial emergencies. The upcoming votes will fill 10 of those vacancies but will leave an additional 17 nominees waiting.
AAUW monitors the judicial nominations process because so many of our fundamental rights and liberties have been established and are protected by the federal courts. Our courts need judges who will uphold our constitutional values of liberty, equality, and justice for all. AAUW, therefore, supports an independent, fair, and demographically balanced federal judiciary. This is the best way to ensure that the clock is not turned back on decades of progress that has been achieved for women and girls.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for September 30, 2011.
The Supreme Court could decide the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care law this term, with a decision next summer. Appeals courts that have already reviewed the Affordable Care Act, which requires all Americans to obtain health insurance, are split regarding its constitutionality. The next step for the Obama administration is to ask the Supreme Court justices to make the final determination.
AAUW believes that everyone is entitled to health care that is high-quality, affordable, and easily accessible. AAUW believes that, although not perfect by any stretch, many of the reforms included in the Affordable Care Act will improve the collective health of the American people.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for September 30, 2011.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Wal-Mart v. Dukes Supreme Court ruling to oppose a class certification in a lawsuit against Costco. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs, who were suing the company for sex discrimination in promotions, did not have enough in common to file a class action. The plaintiffs in Ellis v. Costco, a similar case that originated in a California district court, were initially granted the right to certify a class. However, the Ninth Circuit overturned the certification of the class last week and sent the case back to the district court.
AAUW was deeply critical of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes and strongly believes in protecting the rights of Americans to bring appropriate class-action suits against discriminatory employers. Such cases ensure that all affected workers can right the wrongs against them and stand together in the face of corporate misconduct. Sometimes, class actions are the only way to force a company to change its unfair practices. Class actions also serve as powerful deterrents to keep other employers from engaging in the same practices.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for September 23, 2011.
Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the politics of judicial appointments in his 2010 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. Roberts wrote, “Each political party has found it easy to turn on a dime from decrying to defending the blocking of judicial nominations, depending on their changing political fortunes. This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts.” Currently there are 94 judicial vacancies in the U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. district courts, and the U.S. Court of International Trade, with a total of 56 judicial nominees pending.
AAUW monitors the judicial nominations process because so many of our fundamental rights and liberties have been established and are protected by the federal courts. AAUW urges the Senate to move nominees more expeditiously and the administration to move more quickly in submitting outstanding nominations.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for September 23, 2011.
President Obama is the first president in history to appoint a majority of non-traditional federal judges. Three out of four appointees to the federal bench during this administration have been women or minority jurists. The president’s most notable contributions to the diversification of the federal judiciary include the nominations of Sonya Sotomayor, the first Latina confirmed to the Supreme Court; J. Paul Oetken, the first openly gay man to serve a federal judgeship; and Elena Kagan, whose appointment increased the number of women on the Supreme Court to three for the first time in history.
Despite some progress in diversifying of the judiciary, inaction and obstructionism on the part of the Senate is creating a vacancy crisis in federal courts across the country. Due to unprecedentedly slow confirmation rates and stalling tactics, one in seven federal judgeships are currently vacant, resulting in legal crises for individuals and businesses whose cases remain on hold and whose livelihoods hang in the balance. The Senate has confirmed just nine judges in the past three months, a rate which, if continued, will result in more vacancies at year’s end than when the current Senate session commenced.
AAUW monitors the judicial nominations process because so many of our fundamental rights and liberties have been established and are protected by the federal courts. Our courts need judges who will uphold our Constitutional values of liberty, equality, and justice for all. AAUW, therefore, supports an independent, fair, and demographically balanced federal judiciary. This is the best way to ensure that the clock is not turned back on decades of progress that has been achieved for women and girls.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for September 16, 2011.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said this week that her work as director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project would probably disqualify her from Supreme Court consideration today. Ginsburg, who was confirmed in 1993, said then-White House staffers grilled her on her ACLU work before her Senate confirmation hearings, but she ultimately didn’t face that sort of scrutiny from the Senate, which confirmed her with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Although President Barack Obama has successfully nominated two women to the Supreme Court, Washington Update has reported previously that every district court nominee with party-line opposition from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans has been a women or a person of color. In addition, the Senate went on recess this summer with 20 judicial nominees left on the floor, and Obama has fewer judges confirmed than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton at this stage of their presidencies. Obama has also made fewer nominations.
AAUW pays close attention to judicial nominations because so many of our fundamental rights and liberties have been established and are protected by the federal courts, state and U.S. Supreme Court precedents, and executive-branch enforcement efforts. Not only do our courts need judges who will uphold our constitutional values of liberty, equality, and justice for all, they also need judges who reflect America’s diversity. This is the best way to ensure that the clock is not turned back on decades of progress for men and women of all races.
AAUW urges the Senate to move nominees more expeditiously and the administration to move more quickly in submitting outstanding nominations.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for September 2, 2011.
Affirmative action may again come before the Supreme Court following recent lower-court decisions. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that race was an acceptable consideration in the admissions decisions of public universities within strict parameters. Recently, cases in both Texas and Michigan have emerged that are likely to spark Supreme Court attention. The Texas case upheld a race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin. The Michigan case overturned a constitutional amendment that prohibited affirmative action in public universities.
AAUW supports affirmative action programs that establish equal opportunity for women and minorities and improve gender, racial, and ethnic diversity in educational institutions and in workplaces. AAUW believes that affirmative action programs have begun to break down the barriers that confront women and minorities in education and employment, and these programs remain essential to ensure equal access to all professions at all levels through recruitment, outreach, and training.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for August 5, 2011.
NPR reports that President Barack Obama has made strides toward diversifying the federal judiciary. About half of the 97 candidates who have been confirmed during Obama’s presidency are women, and one-quarter are black. Obama has also nominated four openly gay candidates and doubled the number of Asian-American judges. However, as Washington Update reported in June, every district court nominee with party-line opposition from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans has been a woman or person of color.
In addition, most of the 900 federal judges in the United States are still white men and the judicial nominations process continues to move slowly during the Obama presidency. The Senate went on recess this week with 20 judicial nominees left on the floor, and Obama has fewer judges confirmed than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton at this stage of their presidencies. Obama has also made fewer nominations.
AAUW pays close attention to judicial nominations because so many of our fundamental rights and liberties have been established and are protected by the federal courts, state and U.S. Supreme Court precedents, and executive-branch enforcement efforts. Not only do our courts need judges who will uphold our constitutional values of liberty, equality, and justice for all, they also need judges who reflect America’s diversity. This is the best way to ensure that the clock is not turned back on decades of progress for men and women of all races. AAUW urges the Senate to move nominees more expeditiously and the administration to move more quickly in submitting outstanding nominations.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for August 5, 2011.
The website for the Offices of the United States Attorneys features civil rights enforcement as this month’s “Priority in Focus.” U.S. attorneys are the Department of Justice employees responsible for litigating on behalf of the federal government, including trying alleged violations of civil rights laws such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title IX. Hate crimes prosecution, bullying cases, sexual harassment, and human trafficking are among the issues featured this month. Learn more about the work being done by U.S. attorney districts around the nation.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for August 5, 2011.