Appellate Section - Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)

Briefs and Opinions

• Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discrimination against “any individual” because of a protected characteristic, without regard to the prevalence of that characteristic
  • Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not require different evidentiary showings depending on the prevalence of a plaintiff ’s protected characteristic
  • The court of appeals erred by imposing additional requirements on majority-group plaintiffs
  • This Court should remand for the court of appeals to properly apply the McDonnell Douglas framework

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	12/16/24

• Stanley v. City of Sanford (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • Former employees may enforce Title I if they suffer prohibited discrimination and file a timely charge
  • Stanley has alleged discrimination “against a qualified individual” because she held a job and performed its essential functions when the City adopted and maintained its allegedly discriminatory policy
  • The court of appeals erred in holding that Stanley cannot base her claim on allegedly discriminatory acts that occurred while she was employed

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	09/23/24

• Franks v. City of Oxford (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Disbanding the OHA station, which resulted in Franks’s forced transfer, may well have dissuaded a reasonable employee in Franks’s position from complaining about discrimination

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	09/11/24

• Strife v. Aldine Independent School District (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court erred in dismissing Strife’s failure-to-accommodate claim, which was premised on her employer’s undue delay in providing a reasonable accommodation
  • The district court misstated the elements of an ADA interference claim

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	09/03/24

• United States v. Kansas Department of Health and Environment (10th Cir.) - Appellant

  • The district court erred when it determined as a matter of law that Kansas could not be Gonzales’s “employer” under USERRA
  • The district court misapplied USERRA’s definition of “employer” to effectively preclude a finding that more than one entity may be a servicemember’s “employer” under USERRA

   

  Document	Date
  Reply Brief	10/25/24
  Brief as Appellant	07/05/24

• Abdi v. Hennepin County (8th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The denial of a reasonable accommodation that implicates terms, conditions, or privileges of employment is actionable under Title I of the ADA
  • The standard set forth in Burlington Northern governs ADA retaliation claims in the employment context
  • The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow requires a remand of Abdi’s Title VII race discrimination claim

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 4615831	10/30/24
  Brief as Amicus	05/15/24

• Zamora v. Arizona Board of Regents (9th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Title VII litigation requires a federal notice of right to sue
  • The district court relied on inapt and wrongly decided precedent to hold that Zamora should have filed suit before receiving a federal right-to-sue notice
  • Contrary to the district court’s holding, Zamora filed suit too early, but that does not doom his lawsuit

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	02/01/24

• Bennett v. Butler County Board of Education (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • All discriminatory job transfers are actionable under Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII because they affect the “terms” and “conditions” of employment

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 2697987	05/24/24
  Brief as Amicus	06/14/23

• Davis v. Legal Services Alabama (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The Court of Appeals’ Title VII holding is incorrect
  • The question presented with respect to petitioner’s Section 1981 claim does not warrant review at this time

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 144 S. Ct. 1455	04/29/24
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation	05/18/23

• Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • All forced job transfers and denials of job transfers based on an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin are actionable under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1)

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 601 U.S. 346	04/17/24
  Brief as Amicus	09/05/23
  Certiorari Granted	06/30/23
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation	05/18/23

• Narayanan v. Midwestern State University (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Remand is warranted for the district court to consider whether the denial of summer teaching opportunities affected Narayanan's compensation and thus amounted to an "ultimate employment decision" under this Court's existing standard for Title VII discrimination claims
  • The “ultimate employment decision” standard that this Court applies to Title VII discrimination claims does not apply to retaliation claims

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2023 WL 6621676	10/11/23
  Brief as Amicus	03/22/23

• Lange v. Houston County, Georgia (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • An employer-sponsored health insurance plan violates Title VII if it excludes coverage for medical treatments only when they are needed to provide gender-affirming care
  • A governmental entity acts as a public employer’s “agent” under Title VII where the entity provides and administers health insurance benefits to the employer’s employees

   

  Document	Date
  En Banc Brief as Amicus	10/30/24
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc GRANTED, reported at 110 F.4th 1254	08/15/24
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 101 F.4th 793 (VACATED)	05/13/24
  Brief as Amicus	03/17/23

• Billings v. New York State Department of Corrections (2d Cir.) - Amicus

  • The denial of a reasonable religious accommodation constitutes discrimination with respect to the “terms” or “conditions” of employment absent a showing of undue hardship

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Summary Order	02/06/24
  Brief as Amicus	01/04/23

• Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court erred in granting GDOC’s motion for summary judgment on Copeland’s hostile-work-environment claim

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 97 F.4th 766	03/28/24
  Brief as Amicus	12/08/22

• Nawara v. Cook County (7th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Back pay is available for violations of the ADA’s prohibition against unjustified medical exams and disability-related inquiries committed against employees without disabilities

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	11/23/22

• Naes v. City of St. Louis (8th Cir.) - Amicus

  • All discriminatory job transfers are actionable under Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII because they affect the “terms” and “conditions” of employment

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Judgment, available at 2024 WL 3421389	07/12/24
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2023 WL 3991638	06/14/23
  Brief as Amicus	08/12/22

• Humphrey v. Augusta, Georgia (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court erred in applying the manager rule to Humphrey’s Title VII retaliation claim

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	09/23/22
  Brief as Amicus	05/13/22

• Peccia v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (9th Cir.) - Amicus

  • All discriminatory job transfers are actionable under Section 703(a)(1) because they affect the “terms” and “conditions” of employment

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	05/01/24
  Brief as Amicus	04/25/22

• Stanley v. City of Sanford (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Title I prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to fringe benefits earned during an employee’s tenure but distributed post-employment

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 83 F.4th 1333	10/11/23
  Brief as Amicus	04/13/22

• Davis v. Parish of Caddo (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • This court should expressly clarify that, under Title VII, a plaintiff’s “employer” can include more than one governmental entity

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2022 WL 2955156	07/26/22
  Brief as Amicus	01/25/22

• Harrison v. Brookhaven School District (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • A refusal to reimburse training expenses on the basis of race or sex is actionable under Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, and no further showing of an “ultimate employment decision” or a “tangible employment action” is required

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 82 F.4th 427	09/21/23
  Brief as Amicus	12/16/21

• Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp. (7th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court correctly relied on unrebutted evidence of student harm in determining that Kluge’s accommodation had caused undue hardship
  • The district court correctly concluded that school officials reasonably feared that Kluge’s accommodation could have exposed the school to an increased risk of Title IX liability

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order (VACATING PREVIOUS DECISION), available at 2023 WL 4842324	07/28/23
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 64 F.4th 861	04/07/23
  Brief as Amicus	11/08/21

• Staple v. Broward County School Board (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The employment-action element of a Title VII religious-accommodation claim is satisfied by an employee’s allegation that the employer’s discriminatory action affected the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 3263357	07/02/24
  Brief as Amicus	09/20/21

• Kohler v. Cincinnati (6th Cir.) - Appellee

  • Kohler lacks standing to enjoin the future use of the federal consent decree
  • Kohler does not meet the demanding standards required to enjoin the future use of the federal consent decree

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	08/10/22
  Opposition to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal	06/17/21

• Woods v. Cantrell (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court committed significant legal errors in analyzing whether Woods’ complaint was sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 29 F.4th 284	03/24/22
  Brief as Amicus	06/16/21

• Hamilton v. Dallas County (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Shift assignments are actionable under Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, and no showing of an “ultimate employment decision” or harm equivalent to a demotion is required

   

  Document	Date
  En Banc Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 79 F.4th 494	08/18/23
  En Banc Brief as Amicus	11/21/22
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported 42 F.4th 550	08/03/22
  Brief as Amicus	05/24/21

• Smith v. Boston (1st Cir.) - Amicus

  • A plaintiff need not demonstrate a less discriminatory alternative unless the employer demonstrates job-relatedness and business necessity
  • Having established a Title VII violation, plaintiffs were presumptively entitled to individual relief, and Boston did not rebut that presumption

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	05/21/21
  Brief as Amicus	04/02/21

• Threat v. City of Cleveland (6th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Shift assignments are actionable under Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, and no further showing of “material” harm or adversity is required

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 6 F.4th 672	07/26/21
  Brief as Amicus	01/04/21

• Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (8th Cir.) - Amicus

  • All discriminatory job transfers are actionable under Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, and no showing of “significant” or “material” harm is required

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Judgment, available at 2024 WL 2807317	05/29/24
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 30 F.4th 680	04/04/22
  Brief as Amicus	12/09/20

• Neri v. Board of Education for the Albuquerque Public Schools (10th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Discriminatory job transfers are actionable when a plaintiff brings a claim for disparate treatment under Title I of the ADA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 860 F. App'x. 556	06/14/21
  Brief as Amicus	11/16/20

• Lyons v. City of Alexandria (4th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII is not limited to “ultimate employment decisions” or other employment actions having a “significant detrimental effect”

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision (amended), reported at 35 F.4th 285	06/01/22
  Brief as Amicus	09/22/20

• Jackson v. Genesee County Road Commission (6th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The Opposition Clause of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision does not require employees in human resource positions to go beyond their job duties to engage in protected activity

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 999 F.3d 333	05/27/21
  Brief as Amicus	07/15/20

• Kengerski v. Allegheny County (3d Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court erred in holding that the plaintiff did not engage in protected opposition activity for purposes of Title VII’s antiretaliation provision

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 6 F.4th 531	07/29/21
  Brief as Amicus	05/13/20

• Peterson v. Linear Controls (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The court of appeals erred in holding that racial discrimination in “working conditions” is not discrimination “with respect to * * * terms, conditions, or privileges of employment”

   

  Document	Date
  Petition Dismissed, reported at 140 S. Ct. 2841	07/10/20
  Brief as Amicus	03/20/20

• Chambers v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir.) - Amicus

  • All discriminatory job transfers (and discriminatory denials of requested job transfers) are actionable under Section 2000e-2(a)(1)
  • This court may wish to hold disposition of this case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals En Banc Decision, reported at 35 F.4th 870	06/03/22
  Brief as Amicus En Banc	07/07/21
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 988 F.3d 497	02/19/21
  Brief as Amicus	03/12/20

• Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The First Amendment prohibits governmental interference with ecclesiastical appointments
  • The ministerial exception extends to any employee of a religious organization who performs an important religious function
  • The ministerial exception bars respondents’ employment-discrimination claims
  • The counterarguments advanced by the court of appeals and respondents lack merit

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Judgment, reported at 140 S. Ct. 2409	07/08/20
  Brief as Amicus	02/10/20

• Patterson v. Walgreen (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The question whether a reasonable accommodation must eliminate the religious conflict does not warrant review
  • The question whether an employer may rely on speculative hardships does not warrant review
  • The question whether to revisit Hardison’s de minimis standard warrants review

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 140 S. Ct. 685	02/24/20
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation	12/09/19

• Fort Bend County v. Davis (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 139 S.Ct. 1843	06/03/19
  Brief as Amicus	04/03/19

• United States v. Badillo (1st Cir.) - Appellee

  • Badillo misunderstands the United States’ argument that he may not appeal because he did not intervene to protect his interests below
  • Badillo does not stand in the same position as a nonnamed class member who may appeal a class settlement without first intervening
  • Nunc Pro Tunc Relief Is Not Warranted
  • Badillo is a nonparty who is not entitled to appeal

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Judgment	11/07/18
  Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss	07/24/18
  Motion to Dismiss	07/03/18

• Brathwaite v. Broward County School Board (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that plaintiff-appellant had suffered no materially adverse action for purposes of her Title VII retaliation claim

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals of Decision, available at 763 F. App'x 856	02/28/19
  Brief as Amicus	12/07/17

• Houston v. City of Atlanta (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that plaintiff-appellant had suffered no materially adverse action for purposes of his Title VII retaliation claim

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 735 F. App'x 701	08/24/18
  Brief as Amicus	09/27/17

• Heffernan v. City of Paterson (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The government is prohibited from suppressing public employees’ political beliefs and associations, and that adverse action taken on the basis of an employee’s perceived political affiliation should be treated no differently than action taken in response to an employee’s actual political affiliation
  • Mistake-of-fact situations also arise in the federal statutory context, but the Court should not use this case to address how such questions should be resolved

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 136 S. Ct. 1412	04/26/16
  Brief as Amicus	11/23/15

• Green v. Brennan (S. Ct.) - Respondent

  • The period for raising a constructive-discharge claim should not begin before it can even be established that there will be a discharge
  • Statute-of-limitations principles and Title VII policy considerations support the notice-of- resignation rule
  • The period for initiating administrative consideration of a constructive-discharge claim does not begin to run until the employee gives notice of his resignation

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 136 S. Ct. 1769	05/23/16
  Reply Brief as Respondent	10/28/15
  Brief as Respondent	07/28/15

• Lopez v. City of Lawrence (1st Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court did not properly analyze whether Boston's examinations for police sergeant, as constructed and used, were valid
  • The court did not correctly analyze whether plaintiffs established a prima facie case of disparate impact against the non-Boston defendants

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 823 F.3d 102	05/18/16
  Brief as Amicus	03/06/15

• Young v. UPS (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • Title VII requires employers to treat pregnant employees with work limitations as favorably as other groups of nonpregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work
  • A majority of the courts of appeals (including the Fourth Circuit here) have erred in construing the PDA because the statute's prohibition on sex discrimination requires that pregnant employees be "treated the same" for "all employment-related purposes" as other persons who are similar "in their ability or inability to work"
  • Review by the Court is not warranted at this time because Congress's enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 may lead courts to reconsider their approach in evaluating claims similar to petitioner's, and the EEOC is currently considering adopting new enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination that would clarify its interpretation of various issues related to pregnancy under the PDA and the ADA

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 1338	03/25/15
  Brief as Amicus	09/11/14
  Certiorari Granted, reported at 134 S. Ct. 2898	07/01/14
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation	05/19/14

• University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • Gross v. FBL Financial Group, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), does not preclude mixed-motive retaliation claims under Title VII because the statute's "motivating factor" provision, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(m), added to Title VII by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, authorizes such claims

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 133 S. Ct. 2517	06/24/13
  Brief as Amicus	04/10/13

• United States v. New Jersey (3d Cir.) - Appellee

  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for intervention
  • The court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge by nonparties to the district court's approval of the consent decree

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 134 S. Ct. 529 (United States waived response to the petition for a writ of certiorari (S. Ct.))	11/04/13
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 522 F. App'x 167	06/13/13
  Brief as Appellee	01/23/13

• Vance v. Ball State University (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • The Court should adopt the EEOC's broader standards for supervisory status but that, on the current record, Vance does not meet even those standards for showing the harasser was her supervisor
  • The court of appeals erred in holding that an employee must have the authority to take tangible employment actions to qualify as a supervisor for purposes of vicarious employer liability under Title VII
  • The circuits disagree on the proper understanding of supervisor status under Faragher and Ellerth
  • This case is not a suitable vehicle for resolving the disagreement

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 133 S. Ct. 2434	06/24/13
  Brief as Amicus	09/05/12
  Certiorari Granted, reported at 133 S. Ct. 23	06/25/12
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation	05/24/12

• United States and Vulcan Society v. City of New York (2d Cir.) – Appellee

  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the City violated paragraph 16 of the modified remedial order
  • This appeal does not implicate an earlier ruling in which the district court held that the City's use of the same two examinations had a disparate impact on African-American and Hispanic applicants in violation of Title VII, or the relief requested by the United States to remedy the City's disparate impact discrimination
  • The City's invitation to reassign this case to a different district court judge on remand should be rejected
  • The City's claim is not properly preserved for appeal
  • The City's allegations are inadequate to demonstrate that Judge Garaufus was anything other than fair, objective, and impartial
  • Reassignment could unfairly delay the award of relief to victims of the City's disparate impact discrimination, waste judicial resources, and needlessly postpone the City's use of a lawful, nondiscriminatory selection procedure to hire entry-level firefighters

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Summary Order, available at 2023 WL 5011932	08/07/23
  Brief as Appellee	02/17/22
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 717 F.3d 72	05/14/13
  Brief as Appellee	04/06/12

• Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement System (2d Cir.) – Amicus/Intervenor

  • Title II's abrogation of sovereign immunity is valid as applied to the class of cases involving the receipt of public benefits
  • A state law that precludes a public entity from making a reasonable accommodation is preempted

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 707 F.3d 144	01/30/13
  Supplemental Brief as Intervenor	01/11/12
  Brief as Amicus and Intervenor	08/29/11

• Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (S. Ct.) – Respondent

  • None of the constitutional provisions from which a ministerial exception may derive - the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause and the freedom of association - precludes the application of the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA in this case

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 132 S. Ct. 694	01/11/12
  Brief for the Federal Respondent	08/02/11

• Midwest Fence Corp. v. USDOT (N.D. Ill.) -- Defendant

  • There remains ample evidence supporting a compelling interest for race- and gender-conscious programs that fund highway construction projects
  • Regulations satisfy narrow tailoring because, inter alia, the federal and state goals are aspirational, state goals are individualized and based on DBE availability and capacity, and race- and gender-neutral efforts are utilized to the greatest extent possible to achieve DBE goals
  • Plaintiff failed to allege irreparable harm or the absence of legal remedies to warrant injunctive relief

   

  Document	Date
  Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order	09/09/10

• Johnson v. Board of Trustees of Boundary County School District No. 101 & Don Bartling (9th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court’s decision was erroneous because (1) it contravenes the plain meaning and intent of the ADA and the EEOC’s interpretive guidance; and (2) based on this record, the court should have found that the school district had a duty to provide the teacher with a reasonable accommodation

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 666 F.3d 561	12/08/11
  Brief as Amicus	07/28/10

• Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria) (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • Federal law preempts both the sanctions provisions of the Arizona statute and its requirement that all employers participate in the federal E-Verify program
  • The Court should grant review to decide whether the employer sanctions provisions of the Arizona statute are preempted by the explicit language of IRCA, but certiorari is not warranted to decide whether mandating participation in E-Verify is preempted

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 131 S.Ct. 1968	05/26/11
  Brief as Amicus	09/08/10
  Certiorari Granted, reported at 130 S. Ct. 3498	06/28/10
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation	05/28/10

• Thompson v. North American Stainless (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • Discharging an employee’s fiancé is prohibited retaliation under Title VII
  • Thompson had standing to sue under Title VII, which confers such standing upon any “aggrieved party”
  • Certiorari should be denied as there was no circuit split, and the courts of appeals should further consider the government's argument on this issue in future cases

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 131 S. Ct. 863	01/24/11
  Brief as Amicus	09/10/10
  Certiorari Granted, reported at 130 S. Ct. 3542	06/29/10
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation	05/25/10

• United States v. New Jersey (3d Cir.) – Appellee

  • The district court did not err in denying intervention

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 373 F. App'x 216	04/01/10
  Brief as Appellee	11/18/09

• Lewis v. City of Chicago (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • A claim of disparate impact discrimination based on an employer's use of an invalid employment examination accrues when the examination is scored and the results announced, as well as each time the employer uses those results to hire job applicants in a manner that adversely affects members of a protected group
  • Review is warranted because the Seventh Circuit’s holding that such a claim of disparate impact discrimination accrues only when the examination is scored and the results announced is inconsistent with the text of Title VII, unsupported by the Supreme Court’s precedent, and conflicts with decisions of other courts of appeals

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 130 S. Ct. 2191	05/24/10
  Brief as Amicus	11/30/09
  Certiorari Granted, reported at 130 S. Ct. 47	09/30/09
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation	08/21/09

• Harris v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (4th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • District court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that (1) plaintiff had not established that the harassment occurred because of her sex; and (2) the harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 429 F. App'x 195	05/06/11
  Brief as Amicus	06/10/09

• United States v. New York City Board of Education (2d Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant

  • District court erred in placing the burden on the United States to show that certain beneficiaries were qualified for positions; in finding that one beneficiary was not a victim of discrimination; and in finding that the United States had not established a prima facie case of recruitment discrimination
  • Certain non-victims should not be stripped of all seniority accrued from their awards of permanent status as part of the agreement; victims of discrimination should not receive seniority that exceeds make-whole relief; and retroactive seniority awards to certain non-victims are unconstitutional

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 650 F.3d 65	05/05/11
  Reply Brief	07/31/09
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	04/13/09

• Ricci v. DeStefano (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • A decision not to certify exam results does not violate Title VII’s prohibition against “race norming” and other race-based alterations of test scores
  • Urged the Supreme Court to vacate the court of appeals’ decision and remand for further consideration of petitioners’ claim that the City’s professed desire to comply with Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions was a pretext for unlawful intentional discrimination

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 129 S. Ct. 2658	06/29/09
  Brief as Amicus	02/26/09

• Gross v. FBL Financial Services (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • A direct evidence requirement is not supported by the ADEA’s text
  • The reasoning of Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003), which held that a plaintiff does not need to provide direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(m), applies to claims brought under other anti-discrimination statutes as well, including the ADEA

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 129 S. Ct. 2343	06/18/09
  Brief as Amicus	02/02/09

• Antonelli v. New Jersey (3d Cir.) -- Appellee

  • This court does not have jurisdiction over FMBA's purported appeal
  • The district court correctly dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims against the State, and plaintiffs' claims against state officials for retrospective relief
  • The district court correctly awarded defendants summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the consent orders and the July 1999 order entered in United States v. New Jersey
  • The district court correctly awarded defendants summary judgment as to plaintiffs' equal protection claims
  • The district court correctly awarded defendants summary judgment as to plaintiffs' procedural due process claims
  • The district court correctly awarded defendants summary judgment as to individual plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 419 F.3d 267	08/17/05
  Brief as Appellee [Under Seal]	01/05/05

• Baker v. The Home Depot (2d Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The district court erred in ruling that Home Depot’s offer to schedule Baker to work later on Sundays was a reasonable accommodation

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 445 F.3d 541	04/19/06
  Brief as Amicus	06/15/05

• United States v. Nassau County (2d Cir.) -- Appellee

  • The beneficiaries failed to show that they are entitled to any additional benefits under the Consent Decree, and, in any event, their claims are untimely
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by barring the beneficiaries' claims under the doctrine of Laches
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by precluding further discovery
  • The district court did not err in denying Margaret Cavanagh's application to consolidate her claims with the claims of the beneficiaries

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 175 F. App'x 405	03/30/06
  Brief as Appellee	02/09/05
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 352 F.3d 60	12/10/03
  Brief as Appellee	06/27/03

• Endres v. Indiana State Police Department & Holmes v. Marion County (7th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Whether, in extending the reach of Title VII to cover state employers, Congress validly abrogated States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits for damages by private parties

   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Rehearing as Intervenor	08/08/03
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 334 F.3d 618	06/27/03
  Brief as Intervenor	07/29/02

• Wilkes v. Wyoming Dep't of Employment (10th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions charging illegal discrimination on the basis of sex

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 314 F.3d 501	12/23/02
  Brief as Intervenor	05/20/02

• Vadie v. Miss. State Univ. (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • University is precluded from asserting an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense by law of the case
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions charging illegal retaliation for making Title VII complaint

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 218 F.3d 365	06/25/02
  Brief as Intervenor	04/01/02

• Nanda v. Univ. of Illinois (7th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 303 F.3d 817	09/17/02
  Brief as Intervenor	12/13/01

• United States v. Jefferson County (11th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal of order interpretting consent decree provision
  • District court properly placed burden on intervenors to establish that job selection criteria had a racially adverse impact
  • District court did not clearly error in evaluating impact of job selection criteria by examining statistical evidence

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	01/07/02
  Brief as Appellee	10/30/01

• Culver v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • District court properly refused to grant class certification to plaintiff seeking to challenge hiring practices under consent decree between the United States and the City to address discrimination in the employment practices of  the Milwaukee police department
  • Judge did not err in refusing to recuse himself from the case
  • There were no grounds for consolidating this case with the United States' case against the police department

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 277 F.3d 908	01/15/02
  <Brief as Appellee	06/18/01

• United States v. Jefferson County (11th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction because the appeal is untimely
  • District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to modify employment consent decree to require the City to statistically validate an employment test that has not been shown to have a discriminatory purpose or effect.

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 290 F.3d 1250	05/06/02
  Brief as Appellee	05/20/01

• Carrabus v. Schneider (2d Cir.) -- Appellee

  • Plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim under Title VII, the Constitution or state law in their challenge to a police department entrance examination developed pursuant to consent decree between the United States and the police department to eliminate prior racial and gender discrimination
  • Plaintiffs may not rely on state law to prevent implementation of a consent decree designed to remedy violations of federal law

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 13 F. App'x 33	06/20/01
  Brief as Appellee	04/02/01

• Lunnie v. University of Arkansas (8th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Title VII's prohibitions on race discrimination and retaliation are valid exercises of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 255 F.3d 615	06/20/01
  Brief as Intervenor	12/29/00

• Okruhlik v. University of Arkansas (8th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Title VII's prohibitions on sex discrimination and retaliation are valid exercises of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 255 F.3d 615	06/20/01
  Brief as Intervenor	12/06/00

• Holland v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections (3d Cir.) -- Appellee/cross-appellant

  • District court did not abuse its discretion in modifying consent decree regarding racial harrassment of employees in the state prison system to extend the termination date, given the defendants' substantial noncompliance with the terms of the decree during the life of the decree
  • District court abused its discretion in extending the decree only ten months in light of four-year pattern of noncompliance

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 246 F.3d 267	04/04/01
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	10/16/00

• Siler-Khodr v. University of Texas Health Science Center (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Equal Pay Act is valid exercise of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Equal Pay Act actions

   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied	05/16/02
  Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc	10/19/01
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 261 F.3d 542	08/24/01
  Brief as Intervenor	09/15/00

• Pawlowski v. Regents of the University of Colorado (10th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Equal Pay Act is valid exercise of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Equal Pay Act actions

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	08/22/00
  Brief as Intervenor	06/15/00

• Association of Mexican American Educators v. California (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Title VII prohibits action by an employer directed not only at its own employees and applicants, but also activity that interferes with another's employer-employee relationship on grounds prohibited by Title VII
  • If a recipient of federal financial assistance is a public agency, all of its programs and activities or operations are subject to Title VI, without regard to the specific purpose of federal assistance
  • Broad definition of "program" in Civil Rights Restoration Act applies to Title VI discriminatory effects regulations

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 231 F.3d 572	10/30/00
  Brief as Amicus	06/02/00

• Downing v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Title VII's prohibitions on same-sex sexual harassment and retaliation are valid exercises of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 321 F.3d 1017	02/13/03
  Brief as Intervenor	05/17/00

• Hundertmark v. Watts (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Equal Pay Act is valid exercise of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Equal Pay Act actions

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 205 F.3d 1272	03/07/00
  Brief as Intervenor	02/22/00

• Larry v. Board of Trustees (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Equal Pay Act is valid exercise of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Equal Pay Act actions

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 211 F.3d 598	03/22/00
  Supplemental Brief	08/02/99
  Reply Brief	12/21/98
  Brief as Intervenor	10/23/98

• Varner v. Illinois State University (S. Ct. and 7th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Equal Pay Act is valid exercise of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • Title VII's prohibition on policies with unjustified disparate impact on the basis of sex is valid exercise of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
  • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Equal Pay Act or Title VII actions

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 533 U.S. 902	06/11/01
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	05/14/01
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 226 F.3d 927	09/06/00
  Supplemental Brief	04/03/00
  Supreme Court Order, reported at 528 U.S. 1110	01/18/00
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	04/16/99
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 150 F.3d 706	07/21/98
  Brief as Intervenor	12/02/97

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other