In Memoriam

What a bad year this is.

As a young woman I am so so worried for women with young daughters. She was a bedrock of support for our rights in the Uniter States.

Below are just a fraction of the works this amazing woman has done for our working rights, education rights, financial rights, reproductive rights, health care rights and rights to safety.

Weinberger v. Weisenfeld, 420 U.S. 636. Ginsburg, on behalf of the Women’s Rights Project, successfully argues that a provision of the Social Security Act providing for sex-based distinctions in the award of social security benefits is unconstitutional.

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188. The Court for the first time considers an Equal Pay Act claim based on an employer paying women less than men for the same work, determining that the wage difference between Corning’s female inspectors and male inspectors violates the Equal Pay Act. Ginsburg authors an amicus brief.

Pittsburgh Press v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376. The Court holds that application of a municipal prohibition on employers’ use of sex-segregated “Male Help Wanted” and “Female Help Wanted” columns, to a newspaper that published these columns did not violate the publisher’s First Amendment rights because the ads constituted commercial speech, and concerned activity – sex-based preferences in hiring – that was illegal. On behalf of the Women’s Rights Project, Ginsburg co-authors an amicus brief in the case.

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677. In this case, the first argued before the Supreme Court by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court strikes down a federal statute that automatically grants male members of the uniformed forces housing and benefits for their wives, but requires female members to demonstrate the “actual dependency” of their husbands to qualify for the same benefits. Four Justices conclude that laws differentiating by sex are inherently suspect and subject to strict judicial scrutiny

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702.On behalf of the Women’s Rights Project, Ginsburg co-authors an amicus brief for this case in which the Court holds that requiring female workers to make larger pension fund contributions than their male counterparts violates Title VII.

Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co., 446 U.S. 142.The Court strikes down a state law denying widowers worker’s compensation benefits upon the work-related death of their wives unless they prove dependency or incapacity, while granting widows such benefits automatically. Ginsburg, on behalf of the Women’s Rights Project, co-authors an amicus brief in the case.

M.L.B v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102.The Court, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, holds that a state may not deny a parent the right to appeal termination of parental rights because poverty prevents her paying for the record; the state must supply the record itself. The Court finds the Mississippi statute in question to violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129. Justice Ginsburg authors the opinion, and holds that where a plaintiff has been forced to quit her job by an official act of her employer related to sexual harassment, an employer may not defend against a Title VII claim by showing that it took reasonable care to prevent and correct sexually harassing behavior, and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of such opportunities to prevent harm. The Women’s Rights Project joins an amicus brief.

Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, 566 U.S. 30. The Court holds that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state employers for violating the “self-care” provision of the FMLA. (The court had upheld the abrogation of state immunity for enforcement of the “family care” provision in 2003 in Nevada v. Hibbs). Justice Ginsburg files a spirited dissent, arguing that both provisions were intended to address related problems arising from a documented history of employment discrimination against women based on stereotyped assumptions about their roles as mothers and caregivers—a position advanced by the ACLU in an amicus brief.

Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434, 570 U.S. ___. In a five to four decision, the Court rules that in holding an employer liable under Title VII for a supervisor’s sexual harassment, a person will only be considered a “supervisor” if the employer has formally authorized him or her to take tangible employment action against the victim. The Court defines “tangible employment action” to mean “a significant change in employment status,” such as hiring, firing, and failing to promote. In a vigorous dissent, Justice Ginsburg criticizes the majority for being out of touch with modern workplace realities and weakening workers’ protection from harassment.

Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S.Ct. 1678. The Court holds that Section 1409(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which establishes a physical presence requirement for children of unwed U.S. citizen fathers—but not mothers—violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion rejects the purported justifications for the sex-based distinction as resting solely on gendered assumptions about parental responsibility, citing the ACLU’s amicus brief.

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632. The Court finds unconstitutional a Cleveland School Board rule, requiring women to take unpaid maternity leaves after the first trimester of pregnancy because of a conclusive presumption that pregnant women are no longer able to work. The Court further invalidates a section of the rule making a teacher ineligible to return to work until her child was three-months old. Ginsburg co-authors an amicus brief in the case.

**Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484.**On behalf of the Women’s Rights Project, Ginsburg co-authors an amicusbrief that argues that laws discriminating on the basis of pregnancy make sex-based distinctions and should be evaluated under heightened scrutiny. The Court holds that a disability insurance program that denies benefits for disabilities resulting from pregnancy does not violate the equal protection clause, as it does not involve discrimination on the basis of sex, but discrimination between “pregnant and non-pregnant persons.”

Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199.In this Women’s Rights Project case, argued by Ginsburg, the Court invalidates sex-based distinctions in the payment of social security survivor benefits, finding these distinctions to be based on archaic assumptions regarding women’s dependency.

**General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S.125.**Ginsburg authors an amicusbrief to the Court, arguing that the exclusion of pregnancy-related conditions from a private employer’s disability plan violates Title VII. The Court concludes that pregnancy-based discrimination is not sex discrimination. Congress will override this decision in 1978, through passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Gonzales v. Carhart (Carhart II) / Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., 550 U.S. 124.The ACLU files amicusbriefs in both of these cases, urging the Court to invalidate the “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003” because it fails to include an exception to preserve the health of the mother. The Court upholds the federal ban finding that in the face of “medical uncertainty” as to whether a health exception will ever be necessary, the State’s interest in “promoting respect for human life at all stages in the pregnancy” can outweigh a woman’s interest in protecting her health. In dissent, Justice Ginsburg writes that this ruling undermines a core holding of Roe v. Wadeand Carhart I: that women’s health must always be paramount.