Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution and laws that affect the legal rights of women. We’re working to confirm Justices who understand the impact of the law on the lives of women and their families and whose experiences and perspectives will add diversity to the Court.

Highlights

Fact Sheet | The Health Care Litigation: What Women Could Lose

November 14, 2011

In 2010, Congress passed the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as the “Affordable Care Act” or “ACA.” The ACA is intended to achieve near-universal health insurance coverage, slow the growth of health care costs and insurance premiums, and end an array of insurance practices that have prevented individuals from obtaining health insurance and health care. One of the ACA’s primary goals is to improve women’s health and address the discrimination women have faced in the health insurance market—disadvantages and discrimination that often lead women to bear significant costs or go without health care altogether. The law begins to remedy the economic impact of the discrimination that women have long faced in the health insurance market.

 Read more...

Fact Sheet | Walmart v. Dukes: New Hurdles and a Significant Step Back for Women Employees

September 7, 2011

The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Wal-Mart in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes struck a devastating blow for employees who seek to hold their employers accountable for discrimination and other violations of workplace law. While the decision does not mean the end of the road for the women of Wal-Mart, it does undermine their ability to achieve companywide change through their lawsuit. 

 Read more...

Fact Sheet | In the 2010-2011 Term, the Supreme Court Undermines Protections for Women While Shielding Corporations and Agrees to Hear Other Major Cases Next Term

June 28, 2011

The 2010-2011 Supreme Court Term included cases of major importance in which the Court ruled in favor of big corporations and powerful interests at the expense of ordinary Americans, and most particularly women.  Epitomizing the Court’s deeply divided, 5-4 decisions creating new hurdles for individuals joining together to vindicate their rights against powerful corporations, and new incentives for employers to evade their responsibility to maintain a fair and equitable workplace, are the Court’s rulings in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion. The message from the Court this Term:  the bigger the corporation, the less likely it is to be held accountable.  As the sharp dissents stated, these decisions disregarded past Court precedents, as well as the laws’ intended purposes.

 Read more...

Legal Briefs & Testimony | NWLC/ACLU Amicus Brief in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al.

March 1, 2011

Ten years ago, a group of women employees at Wal-Mart filed a lawsuit claiming the company paid them lower wages and gave them fewer promotions than men—even when they had higher performance ratings and more seniority than their male counterparts. In March of 2011, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) filed this friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. BETTY DUKES, et al. together with the American Civil Liberties Union and 32 other organizations in support of a class of current and former women employees of Wal-Mart.

 Read more...

More Resources

Fact Sheet | Supreme Court Preview: 2011-2012 Term

January 12, 2012

This fact sheet previews the important cases affecting women before the Supreme Court in the 2011-2012 term.

 Read more...

Fact Sheet | The Health Care Litigation: What Women Could Lose

November 14, 2011

In 2010, Congress passed the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as the “Affordable Care Act” or “ACA.” The ACA is intended to achieve near-universal health insurance coverage, slow the growth of health care costs and insurance premiums, and end an array of insurance practices that have prevented individuals from obtaining health insurance and health care. One of the ACA’s primary goals is to improve women’s health and address the discrimination women have faced in the health insurance market—disadvantages and discrimination that often lead women to bear significant costs or go without health care altogether. The law begins to remedy the economic impact of the discrimination that women have long faced in the health insurance market.

 Read more...

Fact Sheet | Walmart v. Dukes: New Hurdles and a Significant Step Back for Women Employees

September 07, 2011

The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Wal-Mart in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes struck a devastating blow for employees who seek to hold their employers accountable for discrimination and other violations of workplace law. While the decision does not mean the end of the road for the women of Wal-Mart, it does undermine their ability to achieve companywide change through their lawsuit. 

 Read more...

Legal Briefs & Testimony | NWLC Written Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Barriers to Justice and Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings Will Affect Corporate Behavior

June 29, 2011

On June 29, 2011, Marcia D. Greenberger, on behalf of NWLC, submitted written testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Barriers to Justice and Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings Will Affect Corporate Behavior.

The written statement focuses on the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and discusses the the importance of class actions in the employment discrimination context and illuminates how the decision could cause great injury for women in the workplace

 Read more...

Fact Sheet | In the 2010-2011 Term, the Supreme Court Undermines Protections for Women While Shielding Corporations and Agrees to Hear Other Major Cases Next Term

June 28, 2011

The 2010-2011 Supreme Court Term included cases of major importance in which the Court ruled in favor of big corporations and powerful interests at the expense of ordinary Americans, and most particularly women.  Epitomizing the Court’s deeply divided, 5-4 decisions creating new hurdles for individuals joining together to vindicate their rights against powerful corporations, and new incentives for employers to evade their responsibility to maintain a fair and equitable workplace, are the Court’s rulings in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion. The message from the Court this Term:  the bigger the corporation, the less likely it is to be held accountable.  As the sharp dissents stated, these decisions disregarded past Court precedents, as well as the laws’ intended purposes.

 Read more...