Briefs
Filter
Post List
In the Supreme Court of the United States Barbara Grutter, Petitioner, v. Lee Bollinger, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Brief of the University of Michigan Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, the University of Michigan Black Law Students' Alliance, the University of Michigan Latino Law Students Association, and the University of Michigan Native American Law Students Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents“I Will Not Sit Idly By While My Future is Determined:” The Response of the University of Michigan Black Law Students’ Alliance to Grutter V. Bollinger, Et Al.
Back in 1998, the Michigan Journal of Gender & Law expressed support for the University of Michigan Law School's defense of its affirmative action policy, which is at controversy in Grutter v. Bollinger. Today, as in 1998, "[W]e certainly do not believe the Law School admissions policy truly addresses the inequalities within our law school and the legal profession generally. Legal education is unfortunately not a bastion of diversity." Women and students of color struggle to be heard and seen, and to achieve equal representation in both the study and practice of law. "Without active efforts, we cannot create a society with equal opportunity for people of different races, genders, and sexual orientations. We strive for such a reality, and we hope that the Law School will not be prohibited from trying to move us there. Diversity is more than a method of enhancing the intellectual experience of law students or a narrow manifestation of 'fairness' which should be protected; it is justice that the Law School, its faculty, and its students are affirmatively obligated to seek out." Now, three years later, the validity of the Law School's affirmative action policy still hangs in the balance. Unfortunately, the most recent decision in the matter was not favorable for supporters of affirmative action. Now more than ever, the Michigan Journal of Gender & Law stands by the Law School and its policies. As a journal, however, we also are committed to providing a forum for the discussion of all views, regardless of whether they comport with our own. Accordingly, we solicited responses to the District Court's Grutter opinion from the Michigan Law School community. The Black Law Students' Alliance ("BLSA") submitted the following press release and amicus brief. Although we would prefer to publish a range of opinions on the issue, BLSA is the only entity that submitted a response piece to us for publication. The Michigan Journal of Gender & Law remains committed to providing a forum in which all voices are heard-herein is BLSA's voice.Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellant Lucas Rosa in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Lucas Rosa V. Park West Bank and Trust Company on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
The District Court fundamentally misconceived the law as applicable to the Plaintiffs claim by concluding that there may be no relationship, as a matter of law, between telling a bank customer what to wear and sex discrimination. It also misapplied Rule 12(b)(6) to the extent that it resolved any factual questions beyond the allegations of the Complaint regarding the basis of the Bank's different treatment of the Plaintiff. Finally, because the District Court incorrectly dismissed the single federal claim in Plaintiffs Complaint, it improperly dismissed Plaintiffs pendant state claims for want of federal court jurisdiction.Amicus Curiae Brief of Now Legal Defense and Education Fund and Equal Rights Advocates in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant and in Support of Reversal In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Curcuit Lucas Rosa V. Park West Bank and Trust Company on Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
By dismissing the plaintiffs complaint under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") on the ground that "the issue in this case is not [Rosa's] sex, but rather how he chose to dress when applying for a loan" (Bench Order at 1), the lower court erroneously established that there are no set of facts in which clothing-based sex stereotyping can form the basis of a legitimate claim of sex discrimination in access to credit. This view of the meaning and scope of the ECOA runs contrary to well-established Supreme Court precedent which prohibits, inter alia, the adverse treatment of a man or a woman for his or her failure to conform to traditional sex stereotypes- whether it be the expectation that men should be breadwinners, or that women should be feminine. Further, to rule, as did the lower court, that stereotypes associated with proper "men's" and "women's" clothing is a matter separate and apart from sex discrimination, is to ignore the significant role that dress reform has played in efforts to achieve gender equality for women from rejecting the wearing of corsets to demands to be permitted to wear trousers in the workplace. Further, the lower court's ruling denies a large body of psychological research that demonstrates the cognitive role that clothing plays in the use of sex stereotypes in the workplace and other market settings. Thus, the lower court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that there can be no relation between clothing-based sex stereotypes and sex discrimination under the ECOA.The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples: The Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs Stan Baker Et Al. In Baker Et Al. V. State of Vermont
As the first state to prohibit slavery by constitution, and one of the few states which, from its inception, extended the vote to male citizens who did not own land, the State of Vermont has long been at the forefront of this nation's march toward full equality for all of its citizens. In July 1997, three same-sex couples challenged Vermont to act as a leader yet again, this time in affording full civil rights to the State's gay and lesbian citizens. Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan, Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles, and Holly Puterbaugh and Lois Farnham were denied marriage licenses by their respective town clerks in the summer of 1997. They sued the State of Vermont and the towns, arguing that the marriage statutes allowed them to marry, and that if the law did purport to limit marriage to different sex unions it would be unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed their claims in December 1997, and the couples appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments on the case on November 18, 1998.Fighting Anti-Gay Abuse in Schools: The Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiff Jamie Nabozny in Nabozny V. Podlesny
In Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996), a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the constitutional right of a gay male public school student to equal protection from anti-gay harassment and assaults. The court held that Jamie Nabozny had stated equal protection claims against his school district and three school principals for gender and sexual orientation discrimination based on allegations that, because he is gay and a boy, defendants had failed to afford him the same kinds of protection given to other harassed students. At trial on remand a jury found the three school principals liable for intentional discrimination.Damned for Using Daycare: Appellate Brief of Jennifer Ireland in Ireland V. Smith
At issue is custody of three-and-a-half-year-old Maranda (date of birth: April 22, 1991). The trial court found that Maranda had an established custodial environment with her mother, Jennifer Ireland, but then nominally ordered custody changed to Steven Smith. The court's order changing custody was based on a determination that day care is an inappropriate choice for care of a preschool child, and that no one effectively can be a single parent and a student at the same time. Those findings have no factual basis in the record, no legal basis under Michigan law, and no logical or even common sense basis at all. In addition, the trial court in effect gave custody of Maranda not to Smith, but to his parents, who were not even parties to the custody action.Challenging Solicitation Statues as Unconstitutional: Appellate Brief in Support of Defendant-Appellant in Ypsilanti v. Patterson
Appellate Brief in Support of Defendant-Appellant in Ypsilanti v. PattersonPimping and Pornography as Sexual Harassment: Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Respondent in Thoreson v. Penthouse Int’l LTD.
Several issues were raised on appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Thoreson AKA DiLorenzo was the Respondent on the issue of sexual harassment and the Appellant on the issue of the amount of damages awarded by the Supreme Court. This portion of the brief addresses only the issue of sexual harassment. Wendy C. Lecker (J.D. 1988, New York University School of Law), authored a section on the issue of compensatory damages.