Legal Briefs & Testimony

Joint Statement of Civil Rights Leaders to HELP Committee re: ESEA

April 04, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education recognized that the access toeducation is fundamental to ensuring equal opportunity for all Americans. But Brown was momentous not simply because it affirmed the right of black and brown children to be treated equally in the classroom, but also because it reinforced a core principle: that equity is central to our democratic society. While Brown energized the civil rights movement, we know that making its promise a reality has proved challenging, to say the least. The enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was one way of implementing the civil rights principles fought for in Brown.C

Complaint filed with Arizona Attorney General’s Office in Hospital Merger Case

March 29, 2011

In April 2010, the Sierra Vista Regional Health Center in southern Arizona entered into an affiliation with a Catholic health system, and agreed to stop providing comprehensive reproductive health services.  The Center filed this complaint with Arizona Attorney General’s Office, alleging that the Board violated its duty to the community when it entered into a deal that limited access to health care.  We are pleased to report that while the complaint was pending, the Board of the Hospital decided to end the affiliation, restoring comprehensive health care access to this rural community.

NWLC Comments to EEOC on Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Significant Regulations

March 22, 2011

Below is the National Women’s Law Center response to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) request for public comment regarding its plan for retrospective review of significant regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13,563. The Center strongly urges the EEOC to incorporate into its plan significant discretion as to when and whether to revisit existing regulations. The Center also encourages the agency to consider the impact such retrospective review will have on the agency’s ability to engage in new rulemakings, rather than revisions to or repeal of old rules. The EEOC’s agenda is critically important right now, and retrospective review should not come at the expense of new regulations, where the latter are sorely needed to enforce our civil rights laws.  Moreover, the Center urges the EEOC, in weighing whether to revise or repeal existing regulations, to take into account, where permitted or required by law, not only traditional and quantifiable regulatory costs and benefits, but also critical values, such as equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.  The Center also encourages the EEOC to account for the fact that clear and comprehensive regulations interpreting civil rights laws reduce business costs and help employers more accurately measure risk.  Finally, the Center urges the EEOC to move forward with the collection of pay data from private employers, at a minimum from employers with 100 or more employees, and by job category, sex, race, and ethnicity.

Testimony of Judy Waxman Before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the House Ways and Means Committee Hearing on the Tax-Related Provisions of H.R. 3

March 16, 2011

Testimony of Judy Waxman on the Tax-Related Provisions of H.R. 3 as modified by the manager’s amendment offered in the House Judiciary Committee, which is a dangerous and misleading bill that imposes a devastating tax increase on millions of families and small businesses that want to keep their comprehensive insurance plans that include coverage of abortion.

Amicus Brief: Commonwealth of VA, Ex. Rel., Cuccinelli, II, v. Sebelius

March 08, 2011

The National Women’s Law Center's “friend of the court” brief is on behalf of 31 organizations in Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, a case before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering an appeal to a Virginia district court decision that a key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional. The brief explains what’s at stake for women in the challenge to the new health care law and why the ACA, in correcting fundamental gender inequities in the health insurance and health care markets, is an appropriate exercise of federal Commerce Clause authority and therefore is constitutional.

Amicus Brief: Liberty University et. al v. Timothy Geithner, et al.

February 28, 2011

Legal brief of the National Women's Law Center setting out women's stake in the fight over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

NWLC Comments to DOL re: Break Time for Nursing Mothers in ACA

February 22, 2011

Below is the National Women’s Law Center’s response to the Department of Labor’s request for comments regarding the interpretation of Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Section 4207 requires certain employers to provide reasonable break time and a place for nursing mothers to express breast milk for one year after their child’s birth. The Center urges the Department to clarify which workers are covered under the provision, as well as how the provision treats both paid and unpaid break time used to express milk.  The Center also asks the Department to address what constitutes “reasonable break time”; provide additional guidance regarding the provision of break time and space for employees working off-site; and interpret narrowly the “undue hardship” exemption available to employers that excuses them from Section 4207’s requirements.  In addition, the Center urges the Department to clarify the applicable notice standard to ensure that women know about and may exercise their right to take breaks to express milk.  Finally, the Center encourages the Department to make clear its intent to enforce vigorously employees’ rights under Section 4207 and to offer compliance assistance to employers.

Testimony of Fatima Goss Graves to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re: Restrictions on Applications from Unemployed Job Seekers

February 17, 2011

Businesses increasingly exclude unemployed job seekers from their applicant pools, either limiting applicants to those who are currently employed or those who have been employed within a recent period of time.  Employers’ use of such a requirement threatens to exacerbate long-term unemployment and undermines broader economic recovery.  Moreover, creating barriers to employment for those who are out of the workforce could have a serious negative impact on women. 

Letter to Michigan Dept. of Education re: Guidelines for Homebound and Hospitalized Services for Public School Students

February 10, 2011

We write on behalf of the National Women’s Law Center to urge the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) to revise its guidelines on homebound and hospitalized services for public school students, which conflict with Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in any program of a school that receives federal funds, and its implementing regulations. It has come to our attention that MDE Guidelines expressly exclude pregnant and parenting students from homebound instructional services in violation of Title IX. The current Michigan guidelines have also encouraged local school districts to also violate Title IX by excluding pregnant and parenting students from essential services.

Appellants' Brief: Amber Parker, et. al., v. Indiana High School Athletic Association, et al.

January 25, 2011

The issues presented by this Appeal are: 1) Whether Defendants' discriminatory scheduling of basketball games violates Title IX; 2) whether Defendants, as local school districts, are arms of the state; and 3) whether Defendants' discriminatory scheduling violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.