Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Jamie Bence, one of WCF’s Summer 2009 Fellows.

With all the excitement surrounding Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination, it’s easy to ignore that the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2008-2009 term, which has some important decisions concerning women.  Our summary below, with links to each of the opinions:

• Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: The case involved the parents of a Massachusetts kindergartner claiming that their daughter was discriminated against repeatedly when an eight-year-old boy in her school required her to lift her skirt or pull down her panties.  The court ruled that students could pursue recourse for harassment in school claims under Title IX, which bars sexual discrimination in schools.
• Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson Counties:  Vicky Crawford was fired from her job of 30 years after she answered her employer’s questions during an internal investigation, and told them that she had been sexually harassed.  The Supreme Court determined that Ms. Crawford was protected under the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination in
  employment.
• AT&T Corp v. Hulteen: In this case, the court considered whether employers violated Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the AT&T Corp v. Hulteen: In this case, the court considered whether employers violated Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  Justice Souter’s opinion held that AT&T is not required to include some pregnancy leaves when calculating pension benefits for its female employees.  In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg remarked that she would not dissent if the Pregnancy Discrimination Act were merely “an ordinary instance of legislative revision” of the Court’s construction of a text.   Ginsburg held, contrary to the ruling, that AT&T’s conduct was facially discriminatory, and actionable because it denies equal benefits post-PDA.
• Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding: This case considered whether the Fourth Amendment prohibited public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing a drug on campus in violation of school policy.  A thirteen-year-old honors student was rumored to have one or more ibuprofen pills, in violation of the school’s drug-free policy.  After an extensive bodily search which involved the partial removal of the girl’s undergarments, no drugs were found.  The court ruled 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.  Read here about how Ginsburg said gender changed her perspective on this case.

The justices can’t start a new term just yet though, as they have yet to decide on an election law case involving an anti-Hillary Clinton movie.  Stay tuned, and stay supportive of Sotomayor!

Tags: Hillary Clinton, ruth bader ginsburg, sonia sotomayor, Supreme Court