Skip to contentNational Women's Law Center

Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel

Emily Martin

Emily Martin is Vice President and General Counsel at the National Women's Law Center, where she undertakes cross-cutting projects addressing women's health, economic security, and education and employment opportunities. She also provides in-house legal advice and representation to the Center. Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Martin served as Deputy Director of the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, where she spearheaded litigation, policy, and public education initiatives to advance the rights of women and girls, with a particular emphasis on the needs of low-income women and women of color. She also served as a law clerk for Senior Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the Eastern District of Virginia and previously worked for the Center as a recipient of the Georgetown Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship. She has served as Vice President and President of the Fair Housing Justice Center, a non-profit organization in New York City. She is a graduate of the University of Virginia and Yale Law School.

My Take

A Crucial Victory, But No Time for Complacency

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: June 29, 2012 at 10:54 am

Yesterday was a very good day for women at the Supreme Court. The constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, was upheld, and its implementation will now continue. As a result, women will no longer be charged more than men for the same insurance; mammograms, Pap smears, contraception, and a host of other preventive services will be covered by insurance with no co-pay; women will no longer be denied insurance coverage because they are pregnant or have had a cesarean section or survived domestic violence; and millions more women will be covered by Medicaid. There is much to celebrate. But the Court's decision reveals that there are also important tasks ahead.

First, the Court held that states need not participate in the expansion of Medicaid as a condition of continuing to receive their current Medicaid funding. The ACA expanded Medicaid's coverage to reach all adults under 133 percent of the poverty level beginning in 2014. (Today the federal government only requires states to cover the disabled, the elderly, children, pregnant women, and parents.) Under the Court's ruling, states will have the option whether or not to provide that additional coverage. But there is much reason to be optimistic that all or nearly all states will do so. The federal government covers 100 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion for the first three years; it is in essence offering the states free money during that time. After that, the federal government's support will phase down — to only 90 percent of the costs of the expansion. By spending very little of their own money, states can ensure that those uninsured who are the poorest and most vulnerable — those least able to get insurance any other way — will receive health coverage. This should be an easy choice, but there is nevertheless work to be done to ensure that all states do the right thing and fulfill the promise of the ACA.

Second, while the result today was almost wholly good, the Court's opinion raised questions about how the Constitution will be interpreted in future cases.

Read more...

Listen to Betty: Pass the Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act

Posted by | Posted on: June 21, 2012 at 02:46 pm

One year ago, in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court, in a deeply divided 5-4 decision, put severe limits on workers' ability to come together to fight workplace discrimination. Yesterday, Betty Dukes, the named plaintiff in that lawsuit, came to Washington to ask Congress to remove the obstacles the Supreme Court placed in the way of ordinary Americans seeking their day in court.

Betty DukesBetty Dukes at the press conference introducing the EEORA

The Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act, introduced by Senator Al Franken and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, with 22 co-sponsors in the Senate and 38 in the House, would do just that, by creating a new avenue for workers to bring group actions to challenge company-wide discrimination.

Read more...

Will your Members of Congress stand with the women of Wal-Mart?

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: June 20, 2012 at 01:58 pm
     
  Tell Your Members of Congress to Stand with the Women of Wal-Mart  
     
 
Betty Dukes with Senator Franken,
lead Senate sponsor of the bill
 
     
  Co-sponsor the Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act of 2012.  
     
  Take Action  
     

One year ago today, we told you devastating news: the Supreme Court had ruled against Betty Dukes and the courageous women of Wal-Mart.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Wal-Mart women could not band together as a single class to challenge discrimination in pay and promotions.

But that's not the end of the story.

For the last year, the National Women's Law Center and advocates across the country have pushed Congress for a solution. Today, Congress offered one!

Tell your Members of Congress to stand by the women of Wal-Mart by co-sponsoring the Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act of 2012.

Getting co-sponsors on this bill will help it to gain momentum — and we need you to help us move forward!

So what would this bill do?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act of 2012 would remove the obstacles the Supreme Court placed in the way of ordinary Americans seeking their day in court.

Read more...

Fired for a water break?

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: June 07, 2012 at 02:03 pm

Help Pregnant Women in the Workplace

Take Action
Share your story about pregnancy discrimination on the job.
Share Your Story

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened to a pregnant retail worker in Kansas. She was fired for following her doctor's advice and drinking water while working because it violated store policy.

So how can this be legal?

Courts have created a pregnancy loophole that allows many employers to refuse to accommodate even simple requests to help workers maintain healthy pregnancies. Pregnant women have been fired because they asked to avoid heavy lifting, or to stay off ladders, or to sit on a stool instead of standing at a cash register all day. It happens a lot. Maybe it happened to you.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would change this. It would require employers to make the same sorts of reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions that they do for disabilities, ensuring pregnant women can continue to do their jobs and support their families.

But as we advocate for this bill in Congress, we hear the same question again and again: Has this happened to any of my constituents? We need to know your story.

Read more...

Last Week DOMA, This Week Prop 8: Thoughts on What's Next

Last week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between one man and one woman, violates the U.S. Constitution. And yesterday, the Ninth Circuit announced that it would not review en banc the panel decision in Perry v. Brown, which held that California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage violates the federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The First Circuit's decision last week paired with the Ninth Circuit's decision not to further review Perry raises the possibility that the Supreme Court may weigh in on questions of marriage equality under the Constitution sooner rather than later.

The First Circuit's decision is the first time a federal court of appeals has held that DOMA is unconstitutional. (The National Women's Law Center joined a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause.) The First Circuit's ruling was issued in two consolidated cases. In Gill v. Massachusetts, same-sex couples married under state law argued that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause by preventing same-sex spouses of federal employees from receiving the same spousal benefits as opposite-sex spouses; and in Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, the commonwealth of Massachusetts argued that this section of DOMA was invalid under the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause because federal funding for specific programs was premised on denying benefits to same-sex married couples. In 2010, a Massachusetts district court had ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional in both cases.

Read more...