Womenstake

The Thinking Woman's Guide to the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

by Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President, 
National Women's Law Center 

As unabashed judicial junkies, we are eagerly awaiting next week’s Judiciary Committee nomination hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.   

And when the hearings begin on Monday, July 13, we will be there, listening carefully. (Keep an eye here on our blog for daily observations and commentary.) The hearings are critically important in learning more about Judge Sotomayor and her legal perspectives. And, the discussions also offer a unique opportunity for our nation to consider some of the key legal issues at stake for women.

We hope you will listen too! You can check out NWLC’s The Thinking Woman’s Guide to the Supreme Court Hearings for more about the important issues at hand.

And get your book group, colleagues, and friends engaged as well! We encourage you to host a Confirmation Conversation and talk about the important issues at stake for women.

The decisions the Supreme Court make have a real impact on our lives every day. The Court’s rulings have protected students from sexual harassment in the schools, established the right to use contraceptives, helped women make inroads to police departments and fire stations around the country, and given girls equal opportunity to participate in educational programs.

Please consider:

• How have these rights and protections expanded opportunities in your life?
• How would your life be different if the Court were to roll back these rights and protections that many of us take for granted?

See you next week at the hearings!

Weekly Round-Up

by Catherine Kruse, Outreach Intern, 
National Women's Law Center 

Devon Haynie at The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette shared stories of local women that demonstrate the negative impact of the economic downturn on women’s health.

Michael Paulson and Kate Lazar from The Boston Globe discussed Caritas Christi Health Care’s decision to withdraw from a joint venture with insurance providers Centene Corp. because of its provisions for abortion services in other hospitals. 

The U.N. is currently displaying a women’s peacekeeping showcase in its visitors’ lobby, and Theresa Braine from Women’s E-News discussed the number of women peacekeepers who are actually part of the organization.

Paula Merritt from RH Reality Check wrote about the health care crisis facing Native American, and reminded readers of the importance of addressing disparities in health reform. 35.9 percent of American-Indian/Native Alaskan women are uninsured.

The Curvature’s Jen LaBarbera wrote about Project Prevention, a Tennessee organization that offers to pay women (and men) who have had drug or alcohol addictions to undergo long-term birth control or sterilization.

Venice has hired its first female gondolier in the history of the city, as Courtney reported at Feministing.

In honor of Abigail Adams and her writings on women’s rights (including her exhortation to John Adams “to remember the ladies”), Suzanne Reisman wrote at BlogHer about her reluctance to celebrate Independence Day.

A Bleak Employment Picture for Women – and Shelter from the Storm

by Valerie Norton, Public Policy Fellow, 
National Women's Law Center 

The unemployment data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics paint a bleak employment picture. The economy lost 467,000 jobs over the last month and the nation’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.5%, the highest rate in nearly 26 years. At the start of the 4th of July weekend, we’d like to be thinking about sunny days and summer fun – but we know for millions of families, the rain is unrelenting. 

Unemployment among women who maintain families – who have no other income to fall back on and are especially vulnerable – jumped to 11.7%, an increase of 17% in three months. Unemployment among African-American and Hispanic women  reached 11.3% and 11.5%, respectively.

There are efforts underway to provide families some shelter from the storm. We’ve previously written about the Economic Recovery Act, which is providing assistance to many in need and creating jobs for women and men. And, thanks to advocacy by a coalition of civil rights, environmental and labor groups, including the Center, the climate bill (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) passed by the House requires the creation of a Green Construction Careers Demonstration Project that will help targeted groups, including low-income women, gain access to quality jobs. But while those storm clouds persist, we know there’s more work to do.

Don’t Call It a Man-cession

by Rose O’Malley, Program Assistant, 
National Womens Law Center 

Here at the Center we’ve spilled a lot of ink (and bandwidth) talking about how the recession, and the subsequent recovery package, has affected women and families. According to our old friend Christina Hoff Sommers, we are being terribly sexist and we should stop.

In her new column for the Weekly Standard, Ms. Sommers accuses feminist groups of hijacking the issues of economic recovery, ignoring the needs of “burley men” to focus on our selfish agendas of…health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and child care. I mean, how dare we?

Let’s set aside for the moment the fact that Ms. Sommers decides to completely ignore some basic facts about women’s unemployment (namely that women’s rate of unemployment is rising faster than men’s, that women are less likely to be eligible for unemployment benefits, and that women are more likely to have already been in economically vulnerable positions prior to the recession because of that pesky wage gap thing). And let’s move past the fact that if the Weekly Standard had its way, there would be no recovery package, for men or women. Let’s even ignore the way she paints women’s groups as smug and manipulative; it’s a tired trick, and I have no patience for it.

Instead, we’ll concentrate on her strange assumption that by arguing for an expansion in areas other than construction and manufacturing, women’s groups have sold out men. It’s true that the Center, along many other women’s organizations, has advocated, and continues to advocate, for the expansion of social programs, but it’s not because we want to ignore or punish male workers; it’s because we believe the expansion of these programs will help alleviate the effects of the recession and get workers of all stripes back to their jobs. We’re not ignoring infrastructure, we’re just looking at it in a broader way. Child care is infrastructure; it creates jobs and allows parents the security they need to get back to work. Health care is infrastructure; preventing families, including those of construction workers, from losing health insurance coverage makes them more likely to make ends meet and less likely to fall into poverty. Education is infrastructure; without it how can we expect our workforce to compete in a global market? Recovery won’t come about by simply replacing the jobs that were lost, but by rethinking how the government can help in a variety of sectors, human infrastructure and physical infrastructure.

A Day at the Supreme Court: First-Hand Impressions of the Ricci Decision

by Kinara Flagg, Legal Intern, 
and Rachel Mehlsak, Legal Intern, 
National Women's Law Center

Today was an exciting day to be a law student visiting the Supreme Court. At 10 a.m., the Court convened for its final session of the term, in which it handed down two of the three remaining opinions (the Justices scheduled the third and final opinion for rehearing in September).

As mentioned earlier, one of the opinions the Supreme Court decided this morning was Ricci v. DeStefano, with Justice Kennedy reading the majority opinion, and Justice Ginsburg reading her dissent.

For us, hearing Supreme Court justices read their own opinions from the bench brought the law to life, especially after having spent the last year reading edited opinions in casebooks at school. Justice Kennedy's delivery was direct and dispassionate as he explained the new standard that the court had created. The U.S. Marshals quieted everyone and told us to be silent during the reading of the opinions, but it was still surprising that the crowd had no visible or audible reaction to such a significant change in the standard for applying Title VII.

Justice Ginsburg, in contrast to Justice Kennedy, spoke quietly but emphatically, making clear her disagreement with the majority’s outcome. Justice Ginsburg cited the importance of Title VII in combating discrimination, especially the kind historically to be found in fire departments like New Haven’s.  She was particularly expressive in noting that basing promotions on a written exam is a “dubious” practice. It was clear that Justice Ginsburg approved of the City of New Haven's efforts to curb the discriminatory impact of their firefighter promotion test and respected the City’s efforts to remedy its own history of discrimination. It was an inspiring moment for us, as two young women, to hear the Court’s only female justice speak up for the underrepresented—and it was moving that the only woman on the court was representing the minority viewpoint. It is unfortunate that Justice Ginsburg has had to read for the dissent frequently over the last few years. We hope that the next time we have the privilege of hearing her read an opinion taking a stand against discrimination, it will be for the majority.

Just Released: Gains and Losses for Women in 2008-09 Supreme Court Decisions

National Women’s Law Center Releases New Analysis of Impact on Women

As the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its 2008-2009 term today, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) released a new analysis of several crucial decisions that demonstrate the impact of the Court on women’s lives, available here.

“The cases that came before the Supreme Court this term illustrate the very real impact of the Court on the day-to-day lives of women across the country,” said NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger.

In Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, the Supreme Court safeguarded women’s and girls’ rights by allowing them to pursue remedies for gender discrimination in schools under both Title IX and the Constitution. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, the Court ruled that employees are protected from being subject to retaliation for cooperating with an employer’s internal investigation of discrimination. “The Court’s decisions in these two cases kept hard-won protections in place,” Greenberger said.

The outcome in two other cases was not as positive. “In AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, the Supreme Court ignored the realities of the workplace and the intent of Congress and ruled against female workers,” Greenberger said. As Justice Ginsburg noted in a strong dissent in the case, the Court’s decision permitted AT&T to pay women lower pension benefits for the rest of their lives.

Just Released: NWLC Deeply Disappointed by Ruling in Ricci

Calls on the Administration to issue guidance to employers to ensure fair exams

The following is a statement from Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), on the Supreme Court’s ruling today in Ricci v. DeStefano:

“The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling today in Ricci v. DeStefano is deeply disappointing and again demonstrates the Court’s disregard for the realities of the workplace. Yet again, five Justices have issued an opinion that sets back the cause of equal employment opportunity, making it more difficult for women and minorities to compete fairly to secure jobs.

“The Court today crafted a new standard that represents a significant change in the law and that will dramatically affect women’s and minorities’ employment opportunities.  When women and minorities are given short shrift, their pay, benefits and retirement security suffer, and so do they and their families. 

“Too often job tests for hiring and promotions are unfair. Sometimes they reflect an employer’s intent to exclude minorities or women, and sometimes they are inadvertently just bad tests. But whatever the reasons underlying the unfairness, it is vital that employers are able to take the steps necessary to ensure that their tests are valid. The goal is fair tests, and the Court erected needless roadblocks in the way of employers trying to reach that goal.

Supreme Court Decision in on Ricci

This morning, the Supreme Court issued its decision (5-4) in Ricci v. DeStefano. You can check out the Supreme Court’s opinion on their website. 

Check back for more information about how this unfortunate ruling will affect women’s employment opportunities. 

NYT to Senate: Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act

by Melanie Ross Levin, Outreach Manager, 
National Women’s Law Center 

Earlier this week The New York Times reminded the Senate and President Obama that their work on fair pay is not over yet. 

They still need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act -- which among other things, would strengthen current laws against wage discrimination and provides tools to enable the federal government to be more proactive in the fight. 

Currently, the Paycheck Fairness Act has 31 co-sponsors. With this strong base of support, let’s hope Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Mikulski (D-MD) can get this bill the attention it deserves and make 2009 the year for fair pay for women.

Ricci comes down Monday – Stay Tuned!

by Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center 

Monday is the last day of the Supreme Court’s 08-09 term, and we’re still awaiting a pretty important decision – Ricci v. DeStefano. We’ve blogged about the stakes in Ricci before. As we’ve said, it is critical that the Court reaffirm that employers have the ability to voluntarily remedy discrimination in the workplace and eliminate barriers for employment and promotion. We’ll update you next week on Ricci and what the Court’s term as a whole has meant for women and girls.