MENU

Sex Discrimination

Title IX & Transgender Bathrooms in Public Schools

Short video featuring Roger Severino
Roger Severino August 05, 2016

Roger Severino oversees the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, where he focuses on religious liberty, marriage, and life issues. In this video, Severino comments on a joint guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education on how schools should apply Title IX to the bathroom choices of transgender students.

Sex and Gender Identity under Title IX: New Guidance for Interpretation - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
M. Edward Whelan May 19, 2016

On Friday, May 13, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice jointly released new guidance outlining how educators are to interpret Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; specifically in the context of transgender students. Under Title IX, schools that receive federal money must not discriminate on the basis of a student’s sex. Friday’s new guidance directs that educators are to consider a student’s sex to mean the gender with which that student self-identifies, not the gender on their birth certificate. Key implications of the guidance are that students will participate in sex-segregated activities and use bathroom facilities according to self-identification, regardless of what school records or identification documents indicate. Our expert discussed the implications of the new guidance.

Featuring:

  • M. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center

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.