MENU

Sex Discrimination

How could the Supreme Court affect marriage?

Short video debating the possible consequences of Obergefell v. Hodges.
Kyle Duncan, Ilya Somin June 25, 2015

Kyle Duncan of Duncan PLLC, an attorney in private practice who serves as Special Assistant Attorney General for Louisiana, and Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, discuss potential consequences of a ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. This case considers whether or not the 14th Amendment requires that states allow same sex couples to marry, as well as whether or not the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize same sex marriages performed lawfully in other states.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Must the states recognize same sex marriages?

Short video explaining Obergefell v. Hodges
Kyle Duncan, Ilya Somin June 25, 2015

Kyle Duncan of Duncan PLLC, an attorney in private practice who serves as Special Assistant Attorney General for Louisiana, and Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, discuss Obergefell v. Hodges. This case considers whether or not the 14th Amendment requires that states allow same sex couples to marry, as well as whether or not the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize same sex marriages performed lawfully in other states.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Young v. United Parcel Service - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-1-15 featuring Teresa Collett
Teresa Stanton Collett April 01, 2015

On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Young v. United Parcel Service. This case concerns whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to employees who are not pregnant but have work limitations to provide similar accommodations to pregnant employees who share similar abilities and limitations.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, agreeing that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the pregnant employee, the Court stated, there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact: whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from that of the pregnant employee.  The Court left open for resolution on remand, however, whether a genuine dispute of fact had been raised on the reasons UPS gave for treating the pregnant employee differently and whether they were simply a “pretext” for unlawful discrimination.

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion which Justices Kennedy and Thomas joined. Justice  Kennedy also filed a dissenting opinion.

To discuss the case, we have Teresa Collett, who is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

Young v. United Parcel Service - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 10-15-14 featuring Teresa Collett
Teresa Stanton Collett December 15, 2014

On December 3, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service. This case concerns whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to employees who are not pregnant but have work limitations, to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who share similar abilities and limitations.

To discuss the case, we have Teresa Collett, who is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

Disparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal? - Event Audio/Video

Civil Rights in the United States
Roger B. Clegg, Peter N. Kirsanow, Theodore M. Shaw, John G. Malcolm, Dean A. Reuter September 14, 2014

Disparate impact liability—or holding an actor liable for actions that have a disproportionate effect (disparate impact) on a particular race, sex, national origin, or religion—was invented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Johnson administration as a strategy for stepping up the fight against employment discrimination. The Supreme Court eventually adopted this theory of liability in the employment context in the controversial case of Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Congress later incorporated it into the employment context in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Obama administration has eagerly embraced disparate impact liability: Administration officials have applied it to new areas, like housing, education and credit. Disturbingly to some, these officials have also arranged settlements in lawsuits headed to the Supreme Court that appeared likely to result in decisions limiting the doctrine’s reach. Because nearly every employment, education, housing, or lending policy has a disproportionate effect on some protected group, the recent growth of disparate impact means that virtually any such policy may be deemed illegal. Panelists will discuss whether and to what extent disparate impact’s metastasis thus threatens traditional principles of the rule of law and whether it is consistent with statutory law and the Constitution.

This panel on "Disparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal?" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
  • Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and former Member, National Labor Relations Board
  • Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and the Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina Law School
  • Moderator: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
  • Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC