IDST 116 (Law)- Important Cases
Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)
-A Michigan statute stated that a woman could not be issued a license unless she was "the wife or daughter of the male owner" of a liquor establishment. Two female bartenders challenged the law, requesting an injunction against its enforcement, on the ground that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -Was the Michigan statute forbidding women from being licensed as bartenders and at the same time making an exception in favor of the wives and daughters of the owners of liquor establishments violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? -No -Used rational basis scrutiny "Michigan evidently believes that the oversight assured through ownership of a bar by a barmaid's husband or father minimizes the hazards that may confront a barmaid without such protecting oversight. This Court is certainly not in a position to contradict this belief by the Michigan legislature." -In Goesaert, the court tells us the equal protection clause prohibits only irrational discrimination (rational basis standard of scrutiny) Very important!!!!!
Difference between the different tests used by the courts
There are three judicial review tests: the rational basis test, the intermediate scrutiny test, and the strict scrutiny test. The intermediate scrutiny test and the strict scrutiny test are considered more stringent than the rational basis test. -The rational basis test is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.
Bradwell v. Illinois
-A girl applies to the judges of the Supreme Court for a license to practice law and is denied because she's a married woman, she challenged the denial under the 14th amendment but the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court was upheld -Question: Is the right to obtain a license to practice law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to all citizens of the United States? -Naur -----While the Court agreed that all citizens enjoy certain privileges and immunities which individual states cannot take away, it did not agree that the right to practice law in a state's courts is one of them. There was no agreement, argued Justice Miller, that this right depended on citizenship.
Reed v. Reed
-After their son's death, both the mom and the dad wanted access to the son's estate, Idaho law Section 15-314 basically says if two people are equally entitled, males are preferred over females. She protests this law saying it violates the EPC of 14th -Court ruling in Sally's favor was the first time that the EPC had been applied to a case of sex discrimination Says that to give mandatory preference to a sex is to make the kind of arbitrary legislative choice that the EPC protects against -So, US Supreme Court overturned the Idaho SC's decision and the girl won -Same rational basis test, but now striking down laws as irrational -*****CRITICAL CASE: Reed v. Reed (1971): Court strikes down Idaho law that gives preference to men over women to be an administrator of an estate
Craig v. Boren
-An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and Carolyn Whitener, a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory. -In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the statute made unconstitutional gender classifications. The Court held that the statistics relied on by the state of Oklahoma were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the law and the maintenance of traffic safety. ********First time the SC used/established the intermediate scrutiny test -The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit states to set different minimum ages for residents of each gender to purchase liquor.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
-Hopkins perceived aggressiveness eventually doomed her bid for partnership -Both supporters and opponents of her candidacy indicated that she was sometimes overly aggressive, unduly harsh, difficult to work with and impatient with staff -Clear signs that some of the partners reacted negatively to Hopkin's personality because she was a woman -RESULT: Price Waterhouse had unlawfully discriminated against Hopkins on the basis of sex by consciously giving credence and effect to partners' comments that resulted from sex stereotyping ----An employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a women cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia
-Not long after Bostock started participating in a gay recreational softball league, influential members of the community allegedly made disparaging comments about Mr. Bostock's sexual orientation and participation in the league -Three years later, in 2016, he filed a pro se lawsuit against the county alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. -Question: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits against employment discrimination "because of . . . sex" encompass discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation? -- Yes. An employer who fires an individual employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the opinion for the 6-3 majority of the Court. ---Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat employees differently because of their sex—the very practice Title VII prohibits in all manifestations.
Jespersen v. Harrah
-Plaintiff Darlene Jespersen was terminated from her position as a bartender at the sports bar operated by defendant Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. ("Harrah's"). Jespersen's termination occurred shortly after Harrah's began to enforce its comprehensive uniform, appearance and grooming standards for all bartenders. -In order to assert a valid Title VII claim for sex discrimination, a plaintiff must provide preliminary proof that the challenged employment action was either intentionally discriminatory or that it had a discriminatory effect on the basis of gender ----The only evidence in the record to support the stereotyping claim is Jespersen's own subjective reaction to the makeup requirement. "She failed to provide sufficient evidence that the challenged policy was part of a policy motivated by sex stereotyping. We therefore affirm."
US v. VMI
-The United States brought suit against Virginia and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. -On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI, the Fourth Circuit reversed. It found VMI's admissions policy to be unconstitutional. Virginia, in response to the Fourth Circuit's reversal, proposed to create the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court. -In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. -Under equal protection analysis, parties seeking to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the action. Here, Virginia failed to meet that standard. -They reverse the Fourth Circuit's final judgment holding Virginia did violate 14th
The Story of California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra
-Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), specifies that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. A woman employed as a receptionist by petitioner California Federal Savings & Loan Association (Cal Fed) took a pregnancy disability leave in 1982, but when she notified Cal Fed that she was able to return to work she was informed that her job had been filled and that there were no similar positions available. -Question -Did Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, pre-empt a state statute that required employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy? --No ---Reason: ----In affirming the judgment that the state statute was not preempted, the Supreme Court of the United States held that it did not compel employers to treat pregnant workers better than other disabled workers, but merely established minimum benefits to be provided to pregnant workers. The state statute was not inconsistent with the purposes of the federal statute, nor did it require the doing of an act that was unlawful under Title VII.
Diaz v. Pan Am
-We do ban men from applying to the job as flight attendants, there's an EXCEPTION to Title XII that allows us to do that -Bona fide occupational qualification exception The airline says we have to hire women because women are better at the non-mechanical side of the job T-he Court then held that sex was a bona fide occupational qualification for the position of cabin attendant, reasonably necessary to the normal operation of Pan Am's business, and therefore that Pan Am's females-only hiring policy was not an unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex under Section 703 of the Act. -The court's conclusion was based upon Its view of Pan Am's history of the use of flight attendants Passenger preference Basic psychological reasons for the preference The actualities of the hiring process
Separate Spheres Theory
1) gender differences in society are innate, rather than culturally or situationally created; 2) these innate differences lead men and women to freely participate in different spheres of society; and 3) gendered differences in participation in public and private spheres are natural, inevitable, and desirable. We conceive of the separate spheres ideology as a single construct composed of these interrelated tenets.
Undue Burden Test
If the purpose or effect of the state restriction on abortion placed a substantial obstacle on an individual seeking an abortion in first semester
Gonzales v. Carhart
In 2003, Congress passed and the President signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Dr. Carhart and other physicians who perform late-term abortions sued to stop the Act from going into effect. Plaintiff argues that the Act poses an "undue burden" on the right to an abortion (defined in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and that it's unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for partial-birth abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. Question Is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment because the Act lacks an exception for partial-birth abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother? Result Ner Upholds federal law banning "intact dilation and evacuation" procedure, referred to as "partial-birth abortion" without exceptions for the life or health of the mother. That law was based on a congressional record that made statements about whether the procedure was ever necessary to preserve women's life or health, and whether the procedure was taught by any US medical school, that the trial court found was contradicted by the vast bulk of competent testimony from the medical community RBG being sassy about the ruling: "Because of women's fragile emotional state and because of the 'bond of love the mother has for her child,' the Court worries that doctors may withhold information . . . The solution the Court approves, then, is not to require doctors to inform women, accurately and adequately , of the different procedures and their attendant risks. . . Instead the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution, ideas that have long since been discredited."
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
In 2018, Mississippi passed a law called the "Gestational Age Act," which prohibits all abortions, with few exceptions, after 15 weeks' gestational age. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the only licensed abortion facility in Mississippi, filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the law Question: Is Mississippi's law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks' gestational age unconstitutional? Result: Ner Roe and Casey overturned. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.' The right to abortion does not fall within this category."
What's the critical case for rational basis test? (The main one)
Reed v. Reed, because this was the first time the courts used it to strike down sex discrimination
How did the way the courts applied the rational basis test change before and after 1970(ish)?
UNTIL 1970S: Rational basis test "without teeth" The statute must further a legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between that interest and the statutory scheme -Ex: Goesaert v. Cleary (1948) -----Court upholds MI law barring women from bartender license unless she is "the wife or fought of the male owner" of a liquor establishment 1971: Rational basis test applied "with teeth" Same rational basis test, but now striking down laws as irrational -CRITICAL CASE: Reed v. Reed (1971): Court strikes down Idaho law that gives preference to men over women to be an administrator of an estate
Intermediate Scrutiny Test---- what's the important case?
States that the statute must further an important governmental interest, and must be substantially related to achieving that interest CRITICAL CASE: Craig v. Boren (1976) Supreme Court strikes down Oklahoma statute prohibiting selling beer to males under. Says the reason they need to distinguish between men and women on the basis of age limit to buy alcohol is for traffic safety. -----State now has to come up with a rational basis and an important interest for the distinction between men and women. The distinction has to be substantially related to furthering a governmental interest -----------^^^The 'Intermediate Scrutiny Test'; the first time the court had used this test
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
The Pennsylvania legislature made new abortion provisions-- the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent. A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. Wife tell husband, minor tell parent, wait 24 hours to get procedure, informed consent Question: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, if married, notify their husbands, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortion as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? Result: Kinda The Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. Undue burden test-- if the purpose or effect of the state restriction on abortion placed a substantial obstacle on an individual seeking an abortion in first semester
