Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bender the Bot (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 14 November 2016 (→‎1970–1999: clean up; http→https for Google Books and other Google services using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Feminism
History
Waves
Timelines
Women's suffrage by country
Intersectional variants
Socialist
Multicultural
Other variants
Religious variants
Movements and ideologies
Concepts
Outlooks
Theory
Areas of study
By continent/country
Lists and categories
Lists
Categories
Feminism portal

Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting) represents formal legal changes and reforms regarding women's rights in the United States. That includes actual law reforms as well as other formal changes, such as reforms through new interpretations of laws by precedents. The right to vote is exempted from the timeline: for that right, see Timeline of women's suffrage in the United States. The timeline also excludes ideological changes and events within feminism and antifeminism: for that, see Timeline of feminism in the United States.


Before the 19th century

1718
  • Province of Pennsylvania (now U.S. state of Pennsylvania): Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]

19th century

1821
  • Maine: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1835
  • Arkansas: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
  • Massachusetts: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
  • Tennessee: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1839
1840
  • Maine: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
1841
  • Maryland: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
1842
  • New Hampshire: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1843
  • Kentucky: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1844
  • Maine: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Maine: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Massachusetts: Married Women granted separate economy.[3]
1845
  • New York: Married women granted patent rights.[1]
  • Florida: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
1846
  • Alabama: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
  • Kentucky: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
  • Ohio: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
  • Michigan: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1848
  • New York: Married Women's Property Act grant married women separate economy.[4]
  • Pennsylvania: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Rhode Island: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
1849
  • Alabama: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
  • Connecticut: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
  • Missouri: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
  • South Carolina: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]

1850–1874

1850
  • California: Married Women's Property Act grant married women separate economy.[5]
  • Wisconsin: Married Women's Property Act grant married women separate economy.[5]
  • Oregon: Unmarried women are allowed to own land.[6]
1852
  • New Jersey: Married Women granted separate economy.[3]
  • Indiana: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
  • Wisconsin: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1854
1855
  • Michigan: Married women granted separate economy.[7]
1856
  • Connecticut: Married women granted patent rights.[1]
1857
  • Maine: Married women granted the right to control their own earnings.[3]
  • Oregon: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
  • Oregon: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1859
  • Kansas: Married Women's Property Act granted married women separate economy.[5]
1860
  • New York: Married women granted the right to control their own earnings.[3]
  • Maryland: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Maryland: Married women granted the right to control their earnings.[1]
  • Maryland: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Massachusetts: Married women granted trade licenses.[1]
1861
  • Illinois: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Ohio: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Illinois: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Ohio: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
1865
  • Louisiana: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1867
  • Alabama: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • New Hampshire: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
1868
  • North Carolina: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Arkansas: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Kansas: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Kansas: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Kansas: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • South Carolina: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
  • Georgia: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[1]
1869
  • Minnesota: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Georgia: Married women granted separate economy.[8]
  • South Carolina: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • South Carolina: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Tennessee: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Iowa: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
1871
  • Mississippi: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Mississippi: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Mississippi: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Arizona: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Arizona: Married women granted trade license.[1]
1872
  • Pennsylvania: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • California: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Montana: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • California: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • California: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Wisconsin: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
1873
  • Arkansas: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Kentucky: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • North Carolina: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Kentucky: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Arkansas: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Delaware: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Iowa: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Nevada: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Iowa: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Nevada: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Nevada: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • The Comstock Law was a federal act passed by the United States Congress on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the "Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use". The Act criminalized usage of the U.S. Postal Service to send any of the following items:[9]
  • erotica,
  • contraceptives,
  • abortifacients,
  • sex toys,
  • Personal letters alluding to any sexual content or information
  • or any information regarding the above items.

In places like Washington D.C., where the federal government had direct jurisdiction, the act also made it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to sell, give away, or have in possession any "obscene" publication.[9] Half of the states passed similar anti-obscenity statutes that also banned possession and sale of obscene materials, including contraceptives.[10]

The law was named after its chief proponent, Anthony Comstock. Due to his own personal enforcement of the law during its early days, Comstock received a commission from the postmaster general to serve as a special agent for the U.S. Postal Services.[9]

1874
  • Massachusetts: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • New Jersey: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Rhode Island: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • New Jersey: Married women granted trade licenses.[1]
  • Colorado: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Illinois: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Minnesota: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Montana: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Montana: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Colorado: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Colorado: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]

1875–1899

1875
  • New Hampshire: Married women granted trade licenses.[1]
  • Wyoming: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Wyoming: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Wyoming: Married women granted trade license.[1]
1877
  • Connecticut: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Connecticut: Married women granted trade licenses.[1]
  • Dakota: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Dakota: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Dakota: Married women granted trade license.[1]
1878
  • Virginia: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
1879
  • Indiana: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Indiana: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
1880
  • Oregon: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Oregon: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
1881
  • Vermont: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Vermont: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Nebraska: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Nebraska: Married women granted trade license.[1]
  • Nebraska: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • Florida: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[1]
1887
  • Idaho: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • Idaho: Married women granted trade license.[1]
1889
  • State of Washington: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • State of Washington: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • State of Washington: Married women granted trade license.[1]
1894
  • Louisiana: Married women granted trade license.[1]
1895
  • South Carolina: Separate economy allowed for married women.
  • Utah: Married women granted separate economy.[1]
  • State of Washington: Married women granted control over their earnings.[1]
  • State of Washington: Married women granted trade license.[1]
1896
  • The profession of lawyer opened to both sexes – already in 1869, however, the first American state allowed women to practice law.

20th century

1900–1939

1907
  • Section 3 of the Expatriation Act of 1907 provided for loss of citizenship by American women who married aliens.[11] Section 4 provided for retention of American citizenship by formerly alien women who had acquired citizenship by marriage to an American after the termination of their marriages. Women residing in the US would retain their American citizenship automatically if they did not explicitly renounce; women residing abroad would have the option to retain American citizenship by registration with a US.consul.[12] The aim of these provisions was to prevent cases of multiple nationality among women.[13]
1908
1922
  • The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act") was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage.(It is also known as the Married Women's Citizenship Act or the Women's Citizenship Act). Previously, a woman lost her United States citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to United States citizen men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.[14] However, the Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to an "alien eligible to naturalization."[15] At the time of the law's passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for US citizenship.[16][17] As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies and allowed women to retain their United States citizenship after marrying a foreigner who was not Asian. Thus, even after the Cable Act become effective, any woman who married an Asian alien lost her United States citizenship, just as under the previous law. The Cable Act also had other limitations: a woman could keep her United States citizenship after marrying a non-Asian alien if she stayed within the United States. However, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years, she could still lose her right to United States nationality.
1931
  • An amendment to the Cable Act allowed females to retain their citizenship even if they married an Asian.[18]
1936

1940–1969

1948
  • Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more, unless their father or husband owned the establishment. Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in this case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit, Michigan district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state's power to bar them from working as bartenders. Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the women bartender could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.
1961
  • Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961), was an appeal by Gwendolyn Hoyt, who had killed her husband and received a jail sentence for second degree murder. Although she had suffered mental and physical abuse in her marriage, and showed neurotic, if not psychotic, behavior, a six-man jury deliberated for just twenty-five minutes before finding her guilty.[20] They sentenced her to 30 years of hard labor. Hoyt claimed that her all-male jury led to discrimination and unfair circumstances during her trial. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, Supreme Court of the United States held the Florida jury selection statute was not discriminatory.
1963

The law provides (in part) that:

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ . . . . ] [22] For the first nine years of the EPA, the requirement of equal pay for equal work did not extend to persons employed in an executive, administrative or professional capacity, or as an outside salesperson. Therefore, the EPA exempted white-collar women from the protection of equal pay for equal work. In 1972, Congress enacted the Educational Amendment of 1972, which amended the FLSA to expand the coverage of the EPA to these employees, by excluding the EPA from the professional workers exemption of the FLSA.
1964

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School — Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)). There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

  • Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
  • Federally recognized Native American tribes
  • Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
  • Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.
1965
  • Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[26] is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion."

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Arthur Goldberg and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided in 1965 that segregated job advertising—"Help Wanted Male" and "Help Wanted Female"—was permissible because it served "the convenience of readers".[27] Advocates for women's rights founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) in June 1966 out of frustration with the enforcement of the sex bias provisions of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11375.[28]
1966
1967
  • Executive Order 11375, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 13, 1967, banned discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment in both the United States federal workforce and on the part of government contractors.
1968

1970–1999

1970
  • In 1970, Eleanor Holmes Norton represented sixty female employees of Newsweek who had filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Newsweek had a policy of only allowing men to be reporters.[31] The women won, and Newsweek agreed to allow women to be reporters.[31] The day the claim was filed, Newsweek's cover article was "Women in Revolt", covering the feminist movement; the article was written by a woman who had been hired on a freelance basis since there were no female reporters at the magazine.[32]
  • The Title X Family Planning Program, officially known as Public Law 91-572 or "Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs", was enacted under President Richard Nixon in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. Title X is legally designed to prioritize the needs of low-income families or uninsured people (including those who are not eligible for Medicaid) who might not otherwise have access to these health care services. These services are provided to low-income and uninsured individuals at reduced or no cost.[33] Its overall purpose is to promote positive birth outcomes and healthy families by allowing individuals to decide the number and spacing of their children. The other health services provided in Title X-funded clinics are integral in achieving this objective.[34]
  • Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259 (3rd Cir. 1970) was a case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1970. It is an important case in studying the impact of the Bennett Amendment on Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helping to define the limitations of equal pay for men and women.[35][36] In its rulings, the court determined that a job that is "substantially equal" in terms of what the job entails, although not necessarily in title or job description, is protected by the Equal Pay Act.[37] An employer who hires a woman to do the same job as a man but gives the job a new title in order to offer it a lesser pay is discriminating under that act.[37]
1971
1972
  • Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688, co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh; it was renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002, after its late House co-author and sponsor. It states (in part) that:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

1973
1974
  • Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974), was an equal protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether unfavorable treatment to pregnant women could count as sex discrimination. It held that the denial of insurance benefits for work loss resulting from a normal pregnancy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The California insurance program at issue did not exclude workers from eligibility based on sex but did exclude pregnancy from a list of compensable disabilities. The majority found that even though only women would be directly affected by the administrative decision, the classification of normal pregnancy as non-compensable was not a sex-based classification, and therefore the court would defer to the state so long as it could provide a rational basis for its categorization.
  • The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) is a United States law (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.), enacted in 1974, that makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract);[43] to the fact that all or part of the applicant's income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The law applies to any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly participates in a credit decision, including banks, retailers, bankcard companies, finance companies, and credit unions.

Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act's Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the creditor's net worth in class actions.[44]

1975
1976
1977
  • Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the disbursement of federal funds in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania statute restricted federal funding to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court ruled states are not required to treat abortion in the same manner as potential motherhood. The opinion of the Court left the central holding of the Roe v. Wade decision – abortion as a right – intact. The statute was upheld, with Justice Powell writing the majority opinion.
  • Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), was the first United States Supreme Court case which the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense was used. The court held that Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, set height and weight restrictions which have a disproportionately adverse effect on one gender. However, on the issue of whether women could fill close contact jobs in all male maximum security prisons the Court ruled 6-3 that the BFOQ defense was legitimate in this case. The reason for this finding is that female prison guards were more vulnerable to male sexual attack than male prison guards.[50]
  • Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, to prohibit the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and to prohibit anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives.
1978

The Act covers discrimination "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." It only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.[52][53] Employers are exempt from providing medical coverage for elective abortions - except in the case that the mother's life is threatened - but are required to provide disability and sick leave for women who are recovering from an abortion.[54]

  • Judge John Sirica ruled the law banning Navy women from ships to be unconstitutional in the case Owens v. Brown. That same year, Congress approved a change to Title 10 USC Section 6015 to permit the Navy to assign women to fill sea duty billets on support and noncombatant ships.[55]
1979
  • Bellotti v. Baird (1979), 443 U.S. 622 (1979) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that teenagers do not have to secure parental consent to obtain an abortion. The Court, 8-1, elaborates on its parental consent decision of 1976. It implies that states may be able to require a pregnant, unmarried minor to obtain parental consent to an abortion so long as the state law provides an alternative procedure to parental approval, such as letting the minor seek a state judge's approval instead. This plurality opinion declined to fully extend the right to seek and obtain an abortion, granted to adult women in Roe v. Wade, to minors.[20] The Court rejected this extension to minors by placing emphasis on the especially vulnerable nature of children, their "inability to make critical decisions in an informed and mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing."[20][56]
  • Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979) was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held void for vagueness part of Pennsylvania's 1974 Abortion Control Act. The section in question was the following:

(a) Every person who performs or induces an abortion shall prior thereto have made a determination based on his experience, judgment or professional competence that the fetus is not viable, and if the determination is that the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable, shall exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Doctors who failed to adhere to the provisions of this section were liable to civil and criminal prosecution "as would pertain to him had the fetus been a child who was intended to be born and not aborted." Franklin and others sued, arguing that the provision was both vague and overbroad. In a 6-3 decision written by Roe author Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court agreed, finding that requiring a determination "if... the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe the fetus may be viable" was insufficient and impermissibly vague guidance for physicians who might face criminal liability if a jury disagrees with their judgment.

The law was challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by a woman, who argued that the law discriminated on the basis of sex because so few women were veterans.[57]

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
  • The U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling Grove City College v. Bell[66] held that Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal aid.[67] The case reached the Supreme Court when Grove City College disagreed with the Department of Education's assertion that it was required to comply with Title IX. Grove City College was not a federally funded institution; however, they did accept students who were receiving Basic Educational Opportunity Grants through a Department of Education program.[66] The Department of Education's stance was that, because some of its students were receiving federal grants, the school was receiving federal assistance and Title IX applied to it. The Court decided that since Grove City College was only receiving federal funding through the grant program, only that program had to be in compliance. The ruling was a major victory for those opposed to Title IX, as it made many institutions' sports programs outside of the rule of Title IX and, thus, reduced the scope of Title IX.[68]
  • Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's application of a Minnesota antidiscrimination law, which had permitted the United States Junior Chamber (Jaycees) to exclude women from full membership.
  • People v. Pointer[69] was a criminal law case from the California Court of Appeal, First District, which is significant because the trial judge included in his sentencing a prohibition on the defendant becoming pregnant during her period of probation. The appellate court held that such a prohibition was outside the bounds of a judge's sentencing authority. The case was remanded for resentencing to undo the overly broad prohibition against conception.
1985
  • The "Mexico City Policy" came into effect, and it directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available.
1986
1987
  • California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a state may require employers to provide greater pregnancy benefits than required by federal law, as well as the ability to require pregnancy benefits to women without similar benefits to men. The court held that The California Fair Employment and Housing Act in 12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law.
1988
  • The Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed in 1988 which extended Title IX coverage to all programs of any educational institution that receives any federal assistance, both direct and indirect.[71]
1989
  • Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on July 3, 1989 upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an area that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade.
  • Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of employer liability for sex discrimination. The Court held that the employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision regarding employment would have been the same if sex discrimination had not occurred. The accounting firm failed to prove that the same decision to postpone Ann Hopkins's promotion to partnership would have still been made in the absence of sex discrimination, and therefore, the employment decision constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The significance of the Supreme Court's ruling was twofold. First, it established that gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination. Second, it established the mixed-motive framework as an evidentiary framework for proving discrimination under a disparate treatment theory even when lawful reasons for the adverse employment action are also present.[72]
  • The first "Restroom Equity" Act in the United States was passed in California in 1989.[73] It was introduced by then-Senator Arthur Torres after several long waits for his wife to return from the bathroom.[73]
1990
  • Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative. The law was declared valid with the judicial bypass, but the ruling struck down the two-parent notification requirement.
1991
1992
1993
  • Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics. Several abortion clinics (most known was the Alexandria Health Clinic) sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from voicing their freedom of speech in front of the clinics in Washington D.C.[77]

Alexandria Women's Health Clinic reported that the protesters violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits protests to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws."[78]

  • The "Mexico City Policy", which directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available, was rescinded by President Clinton.
  • On October 22, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994.[79] The Act contained a new version of the Hyde Amendment that expanded the category of abortions for which federal funds are available under Medicaid to include cases of rape and incest.[80]  
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
  • A United States House of Representatives appropriations bill (HR 2490) that contained an amendment specifically permitting breastfeeding[86] was signed into law on September 29, 1999. It stipulated that no government funds may be used to enforce any prohibition on women breastfeeding their children in federal buildings or on federal property.
  • A federal law enacted in 1999 specifically provides that "a woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a federal building or on federal property, if the woman and her child are otherwise authorized to be present at the location."[87]

21st century

2000
2001
  • The "Mexico City Policy", which directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available, was reinstated by President George W. Bush, who implemented it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to "voluntary population planning" assistance provided by the Department of State.
2002
2003
2005
  • McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004)[1], was a case in which the principal original litigant in Roe v. Wade,[90] (1973) Norma McCorvey, also known as 'Jane Roe', requested the overturning of Roe. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that McCorvey could not do this; the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 22, 2005,[91] rendering the opinion of the Fifth Circuit final.
  • The lawsuit Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al. (No. C03-2817), filed in June 2003, alleged that the nationwide retailer Abercrombie & Fitch "violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining recruiting and hiring practice that excluded minorities and women and adopting a restrictive marketing image, and other policies, which limited minority and female employment."[92][93] The female and Latino, African-American, and Asian American plaintiffs charged that they were either not hired despite strong qualifications or if hired "they were steered not to sales positions out front, but to low-visibility, back-of-the-store jobs, stocking and cleaning up."[94] In April 2005, the U.S. District Court approved a settlement, valued at approximately $50 million, which requires the retail clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch to provide monetary benefits to the class of Latino, African American, Asian American and female applicants and employees who charged the company with discrimination.[94][95] The settlement, rendered as a Consent Decree, also requires the company to institute a range of policies and programs to promote diversity among its workforce and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender.[92][95] Implementation of the Consent Decree continued into 2011. Abercrombie did not admit liability.[94]
  • Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
  • New York City Council passed a law in 2005 requiring all new establishments falling under the terms of the legislation to maintain roughly a two-to-one ratio of women's bathroom stalls to men's stalls and urinals. Existing establishments were required to come into compliance when they undergo extensive renovations, while restaurants, schools, hospitals, and municipal buildings were excluded.[96][97]
2006

Darlene Jespersen was a 20-year employee at Harrah's Casino in Reno, Nevada. In 2000, Harrah's advanced a "Personal Best" policy, which created strict standards for employee appearance and grooming, which included a requirement that women wear substantial amounts of makeup. Jespersen was fired for non-compliance with its policy. Jespersen argued the makeup requirement was contrary to her self-image, and that the requirement violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[98][99]

In 2001, Jespersen filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which found against her claim. The district court opined that the policy imposed "equal burdens" on both sexes and that the policy did not discriminate based on immutable characteristics of her sex. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, but on rehearing en banc, reversed part of its decision. The full panel concluded, in contrast to the previous rulings, that such grooming requirements could be challenged as sex stereotyping in some cases, even in view of the decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. However, the panel found that Jespersen had not provided evidence that the policy had been motivated by stereotyping, and affirmed the district court's finding for Harrah's.[100][101][102]

  • Khalid Adem, an Ethiopian American, was both the first person prosecuted and first person convicted for female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United States,[103][104] stemming from charges that he had personally excised his 2-year-old daughter's clitoris with a pair of scissors.[105][106][107]
  • On November 24, 2006, the Title IX regulations were amended to provide greater flexibility in the operation of single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at the primary or secondary school level.[108]
  • Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."
2007
2009

The bill also:

  • Removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity, like voting or going to school;
  • Gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue;
  • Provided $5 million per year in funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes;
  • Requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to track statistics on hate crimes based on gender and gender identity (statistics for the other groups were already tracked).[117][118]
2010
2011
  • Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case. The case was an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in which the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, reversed the district court's decision to certify a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiff class included 1.6 million women who currently work or have worked for Wal-Mart stores, including the lead plaintiff, Betty Dukes. Dukes, a current Wal-Mart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Wal-Mart stores.[126]

The Court agreed to hear argument on whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2), which provides for class-actions if the defendant's actions make injunctive relief appropriate, can be used to file a class action that demands monetary damages. The Court also asked the parties to argue whether the class meets the traditional requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.[127]

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the class should not be certified in its current form but was only 5-4 on the reason for that and whether the class could continue in a different form.

2012
  • Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc)) was a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that upheld a provision of a South Dakota law that requires a doctor to inform a patient, prior to providing an abortion, that one of the "known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors" is an "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide."
  • A provision of the Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective August 1, 2012, states that all new health insurance plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Women's Preventive Services – including: well-woman visits; gestational diabetes screening; human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women age 30 and older; sexually transmitted infection counseling; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling; FDA-approved contraceptive methods and contraceptive counseling; breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling; and domestic violence screening and counseling – will be covered without cost sharing.[128] The requirement to cover FDA-approved contraceptive methods is also known as the contraceptive mandate.[129][130]
2013
  • The Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, which prohibits knowingly transporting a girl out of the United States for the purpose of undergoing FGM, was enacted.[131]
2014

For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5-4 vote.[135] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[136]

2015
  • The Obama administration issued a new rule stating that a closely held for-profit company that objects to covering contraception in its health plan can write a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services stating its objection, and that the Department will then notify a third-party insurer of the company's objection, and the insurer will provide birth control coverage to the company's female employees at no additional cost to the company.[137]
  • A policy update in 2015 required all Indian Health Services-run pharmacies, clinics, and emergency departments to have Plan B One-Step in stock, to distribute it to any woman (or her representative) who asked for it without a prescription, age verification, registration or any other requirement, to provide orientation training to all staff regarding the medication, to provide unbiased and medically accurate information about emergency contraception, and to make someone available at all times to distribute the pill in case the primary staffer objected to providing it on religious or moral grounds.[138]
  • Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers LLC and DOES 1-20 was a lawsuit filed in 2012 in San Francisco County Superior Court under the law of California by executive Ellen Pao for gender discrimination against her employer, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Overlapping with a number of condemning studies on the representation of women in venture capital, the case was followed closely by reporters, advocacy groups and Silicon Valley executives.[139] Given the tendency for similar cases to reach settlements out of court, coverage of Pao v. Kleiner Perkins described it as a landmark trial once it began in February 2015.[140][141] On March 27, 2015 the jury found in favor of Kleiner Perkins on all counts.
  • In the U.S. Supreme Court case Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ___ (2015), the Court held that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but that such claims require a plaintiff to prove it is the defendant's policies that cause a disparity.[142] The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on sex.[143]
2016
  • Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations.[144] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs".[145] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[146] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases."[147] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case.[148]
  • Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that reckless misdemeanor domestic violence convictions trigger gun control prohibitions on gun ownership.[149][150][151]
  • Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on June 27, 2016, when the Court ruled 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. It has been called the most significant abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.[152]
  • The Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016 was passed by the United States Congress in September 2016 and signed into law by US President Barack Obama on October 7, 2016.[153] The law overhauls the way that rape kits are processed within the United States and creates a bill of rights for victims. Through the law, survivors of sexual assault are given the right to have a rape kit preserved for the length of the case's statute of limitations, to be notified of an evidence kit's destruction, and to be informed about results of forensic exams.[153]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Closely held" corporations are defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those which a) have more than 50% of the value of their outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and b) are not personal service corporations. By this definition, approximately 90% of U.S. corporations are "closely held", and approximately 52% of the U.S. workforce is employed by "closely held" corporations. See Blake 2014, Washington Post.
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di B. Zorina Khan (November 20, 2013). The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790–1920. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521747202.
  2. ^ Boswell, Angela (2000). "Married Women's Property Rights and the Challenge to the Patriarchal Order: Colorado County, Texas". In Coryell, Janet L. (ed.). Negotiating Boundaries of Southern Womanhood: Dealing With the Powers That Be. University of Missouri Press. p. 92.
  3. ^ a b c d Roberts, Evan (14–16 September 2006), Women's Rights and Women's Labor: Married Women's Property Laws and Labor Force Participation, 1860–1900, Economic History Association annual meeting, Pittsburgh (PA){{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ^ New York State (1848), Married Women's Property Act (PDF)
  5. ^ a b c d Beard, Charles Austin; Beard, Mary Ritter. History of the United States. Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606202166.
  6. ^ Richard J Evans (1979). Kvinnorörelsens historia i Europa, USA, Australien och Nya Zeeland 1840–1920 (The Feminists: Women's Emancipation Movements in Europe, America and Australasia, 1840–1920) Helsingborg: LiberFörlag Stockholm. ISBN 91-38-04920-1 (Swedish)
  7. ^ Smith, Bonnie G., ed. (2008). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Volume 1. Oxford University Press.
  8. ^ Lebsock, Suzanne D. (May 1977). "Radical Reconstruction and the Property Rights of Southern Women". The Journal of Southern History. 43 (2). Southern Historical Association: 195–216. doi:10.2307/2207345. JSTOR 2207345.
  9. ^ a b c Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. Rereading Sex. New York: Random House, 2002.
  10. ^ Beisel, Nicola. Imperiled Innocents. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997.
  11. ^ Tsiang 1942, p. 114
  12. ^ Tsiang 1942, p. 115
  13. ^ Martin 2005
  14. ^ Tsiang, I-Mien (1942). The question of expatriation in America prior to 1907. Johns Hopkins Press. p. 115. OCLC 719352.
  15. ^ Marian L. Smith (1998), "Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940", Prologue Magazine, 30 (2), retrieved 2009-01-03
  16. ^ For Teachers: A Brief Introduction to Asian American History, Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program, retrieved 2009-01-03
  17. ^ Timeline of Asian American History, Digital History: University of Houston, retrieved 2009-01-03
  18. ^ Gardner, Martha Mabie (2005), The Qualities of a Citizen: Women, Immigration, and Citizenship, 1870-1965, Princeton University Press, p. 146, ISBN 978-0-691-08993-5 ISBN 0-691-08993-0, ISBN 978-0-691-08993-5
  19. ^ "Biographical Note". The Margaret Sanger Papers. Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1995. Retrieved 2006-10-21. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  20. ^ a b c Cushman, Clare (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. p. 29. Cite error: The named reference ":0" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  21. ^ "The Equal Pay Act Turns 40". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Archived from the original on June 26, 2012.
  22. ^ a b "Equal Pay Act of 1963". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  23. ^ "Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21". finduslaw. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
  24. ^ Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Company, 791 F.2d 888 (11th Cir. 1986).
  25. ^ "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". Finduslaw.com. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
  26. ^ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
  27. ^ New York Times: John Herbers, "Help Wanted: Picking the Sex for the Job," September 28, 1965, accessed March 25, 2012
  28. ^ National Organization for Women: "The Founding of NOW, accessed March 25, 2012
  29. ^ "Title VIII: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity - HUD". Portal.hud.gov. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
  30. ^ a b "Newsweek Agrees to End Sex Discrimination Policy". Eugene Register-Guard, via Google News. Associated Press. August 28, 1970.
  31. ^ Lynn Povich (2013). The Good Girls Revolt: How the Women of Newsweek Sued their Bosses and Changed the Workplace. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1610393263.
  32. ^ Office of Population Affairs Clearinghouse. "Fact Sheet: Title X Family Planning Program." January 2008.
  33. ^ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs. "Family Planning."
  34. ^ Gaye, Luna (1990). "Understanding gender-based wage discrimination: legal interpretation and trends of pay equity in higher education". Journal of Law & Education (19): 371. ...first cases to discuss the Bennett Amendment, and consequently to consider the relationship between the EPA and Title VII, was Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co...
  35. ^ Moore, Mary Virginia; Yohannan T. Abraham (1994). "The legal and juridical posture". Public Personnel Management. 23. Retrieved 2008-10-11. VII was examined in Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co....
  36. ^ a b Woody, Robert Henley (1984). The Law and the Practice of Human Services. Jossey-Bass Publishers. p. 203. ISBN 0-87589-602-2.
  37. ^ Nettie and Florence Cronise, Ohio's first female lawyers, honored in Tiffin - Story
  38. ^ Reed v. Reed - Significance, Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972
  39. ^ See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 ("We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.").
  40. ^ Technically, the case was decided under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, not under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since the latter applies not to the federal government but to the states. However, because Bolling v. Sharpe, through the doctrine of reverse incorporation, made the standards of the Equal Protection Clause applicable to the federal government, it was for practical purposes an addition not to due process, but rather to equal protection jurisprudence.
  41. ^ USAID Public website USAID's Family Planning Guiding Principles and U.S. Legislative and Policy Requirements Retrieved September 10, 2012
  42. ^ Dlabay, Les R.; Burrow, James L.; Brad, Brad (2009). Intro to Business. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. p. 470. ISBN 978-0-538-44561-0. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from denying a person credit because of age, race, sex, or marital status.
  43. ^ Regulation B, Equal Credit Opportunity 12 CFR 202.14(b) as stated in Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending, Federal Reserve System of Boston.
  44. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (2005). Becoming Justice Blackmun. New York: Times Books. pp. 217–218. ISBN 0-8050-8057-0.
  45. ^ a b Full text opinion from Justia.com
  46. ^ Young, Julia L. (1977). "Constitutional Law: Elimination of Spousal and Parental Consent Requirements for Abortion". Washburn Law Journal. 16: 463–464. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
  47. ^ a b c Abortion Funding Ban Has Evolved Over The Years
  48. ^ a b The Hyde Amendment at 35: a new abortion divide
  49. ^ Cushman, C., 2001, Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights. CQ Press. pp. 122-8
  50. ^ Text of the Act from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  51. ^ Facts About Pregnancy Discrimination from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  52. ^ Pregnancy Discrimination from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  53. ^ Congress and the Nation, s.vv. "1798," "Pregnancy Disability." Vol. V, 1977-1980, p. 797
  54. ^ "Historical Timeline".
  55. ^ Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti II), 443 U.S. 622, 643 (1979)
  56. ^ a b "Oyez: Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979), U.S. Supreme Court Summary". The Oyez Project website. The Oyez Project. 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  57. ^ Glazer-Raymo, Judith (1999). Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 94.
  58. ^ Clark, VèVè; Garner, Shirley Nelson; Higonnet, Margaret; et al., eds. (1996). Antifeminism in the academy. Routledge. pp. 210–211.
  59. ^ Kohlstedt, Sally G.; Fischer, Suzanne M. (2009). "Unstable Networks Among Women in Academe: the Legal Case of Shyamala Rajender". Centaurus. 51 (1): 37–62. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0498.2008.00131.x. PMID 19618550.
  60. ^ Leap, Terry L. (1993). Tenure, discrimination, and the courts. Cornell University. p. 186.
  61. ^ 448 U.S. 297 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
  62. ^ "Kirchberg v. Feenstra :: 450 U.S. 455 (1981) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center". Justia Law. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  63. ^ "Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
  64. ^ FindLaw
  65. ^ a b "The Oyez Project, Grove City College v. Bell" , 465 U.S. 555 (1984)
  66. ^ "Title IX." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 19 Nov. 2009
  67. ^ Suggs, Welsh. A Place on the Team. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 2005.
  68. ^ 151 Cal.App.3d 1128 (1984)
  69. ^ Greenhouse, Linda. Becoming Justice Blackmun. Times Books. 2005. Page 183.
  70. ^ "Legislative History of Title IX" National Organization for Women. June 27, 2007.
  71. ^ Goldstein, Leslie. "Gender Stereotyping and the Workplace: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)." 2006. The Constitutional and Legal Rights of Women, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2006. 167-75. Print.
  72. ^ a b Banks, Taunya Lovell (1990–1991). "Toilets as a Feminist Issue: A True Story". Berkeley Women's Law Journal. 6 (2). UC Berkeley: 263–289.
  73. ^ Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 111 S. Ct. 1196, 113 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1991)
  74. ^ Presser, Arlynn Leiber; Bertin, Joan (June 1990). "Women at Work: Should 'Fetal Protection' Policies Be Upheld". ABA Journal. 76 (6). American Bar Association: 38–39.
  75. ^ Morris, Danielle Keat. "Fordham International Law Journal Planned Parenthood v. Casey: From U.S. "Rights Talk" to Western European "Responsibility Talk"".
  76. ^ Colman McCarthy. "Scalia Outreasons Stevens in Bray Case: METRO Edition." Star Tribune: 14.A. 1993. Print.
  77. ^ United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993 : Hearing before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, on S. 636 ... may 12, 1993. United States:, 1993. Print.
  78. ^ Pub.L. No. 103-112, 107 Stat. 1082 (1993).
  79. ^ Id. § 509, 107 Stat. at 1113 (the 1994 Hyde Amendment).
  80. ^ "Landmark Title IX Cases in History" Gender Equity in Sport. February 23, 2006.
  81. ^ "Hate Crime Sentencing Act". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
  82. ^ Dugger, Celia W. "June 9-15; Asylum From Mutilation",The New York Times, 16 June 1996.
  83. ^ Zabus 2004, p. 110.
  84. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (February 20, 1997). "High Court Upholds 15-Foot Buffer Zone At Abortion Clinics". The New York Times.
  85. ^ "Breastfeeding Amendment".
  86. ^ "Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000". Retrieved 13 July 2012. section 647.
  87. ^ Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate (HTML); * same, from the U.S. Government Printing Office (PDF)
  88. ^ Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ____ (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-19. ("The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as 'intact D&E,' 'dilation and extraction' (D&X), and 'intact D&X' ....For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E....A straightforward reading of the Act's text demonstrates its purpose and the scope of its provisions: It regulates and proscribes, with exceptions or qualifications to be discussed, performing the intact D&E procedure.")
  89. ^ 410 U.S. 113
  90. ^ Supreme Court docket 04-967
  91. ^ a b "EEOC Agrees to Landmark Resolution of Discrimination Case Against Abercrombie & Fitch," Press Release from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nov. 18, 2004.
  92. ^ "The Look of Abercrombie & Fitch: Retail Store Accused Of Hiring Attractive, Mostly White Salespeople," CBS 60 Minutes segment on Gonzalez case, Dec. 5, 2003.
  93. ^ a b c "Abercrombie & Fitch Bias Case Is Settled," The New York Times, November 17, 2004.
  94. ^ a b "Abercrombie settles 3 bias suits: Retailer to pay $40 million; judge has to rule on plan," San Francisco Chronicle, November 17, 2004.
  95. ^ A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to equal access to bathroom facilities, New York City Council
  96. ^ Confessore, Nicholas (26 May 2005). "Council Passes a Bill to Shorten the Line at the Ladies' Room". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
  97. ^ Moldover, Judith A. (April 28, 2006). "9th Circuit: Cosmetics cause of action OK'd". HR Magazine. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  98. ^ Selmi, Michael (2007). "The Many Faces of Darlene Jespersen". Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy. 14: 467.
  99. ^ Chandler, Susan; Jones, Jill B. (2011-07-28). Casino Women: Courage in Unexpected Places. Cornell University Press. pp. 79–. ISBN 9780801450143. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  100. ^ Publishers, Aspen (2008-05-02). Employment Law: Keyed to Courses Using Rothstein and Liebman's Employment Law. Aspen Publishers Online. pp. 92–. ISBN 9780735571860. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  101. ^ Cooper, Frank Rudy; McGinley, Ann C. (August 2012). Multidimensional Masculinities and Law: Feminist and Critical Race Lenses. NYU Press. pp. 54–. ISBN 9780814723500. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  102. ^ There were, however, two people in California in 2004 charged with "conspiring" to commit an act of FGM. Adem was the first American prosecuted for actually performing the procedure.
  103. ^ Broussard, Patricia A. (2008). "Female genital mutilation: exploring strategies for ending ritualized torture; shaming, blaming, and utilizing the Convention against Torture". Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. 15. Durham: Duke University School of Law: 19–48. Retrieved 2008-10-23.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  104. ^ Luscombe, Belinda (2010-05-11). "Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting?". Time. Retrieved 2010-05-18.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  105. ^ Brock, J. (2006). "Adem gets 10 years in prison for mutilation". Gwinnett Daily Post. Retrieved November 4, 2006.
  106. ^ "Man Convicted in Daughter's Mutilation". The New York Times. Associated Press. 2006-11-02. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
  107. ^ "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance". Federal Register. 71 (206). October 25, 2006. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  108. ^ Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
  109. ^ http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-84-6-Weinberg.pdf
  110. ^ Ted Frank, American Enterprise Institute, "The Ledbetter Case and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act," Feb. 4, 2008, http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day04/archive/2008/02/04/the-ledbetter-case.aspx. The Supreme Court's Ledbetter ruling specifically noted that the plaintiff could have sued instead under the Equal Pay Act, observing that plaintiff "having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII." http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZO.html
  111. ^ See the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 541 U.S. 369 (2004), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1205.ZS.html.
  112. ^ Statement released after the President rescinds "Mexico City Policy" (whitehouse.gov, 1-25-09) http://www.whitehouse.gov/statement-released-after-the-president-rescinds/
  113. ^ "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act passes Congress, finally". Mercurynews.com. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  114. ^ "Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill". nytimes.com. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  115. ^ "President Obama Signs Hate Crime Prevention Act". Fox News. October 28, 2009. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  116. ^ "Human Rights Campaign". hrc.org. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  117. ^ "Hate Crimes Protections 2007". National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved December 9, 2009.
  118. ^ a b Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Government Printing Office. Page 459.
  119. ^ Landau, Elizabeth (April 9, 2010). "Breastfeeding rooms hidden in health care law". CNN.
  120. ^ Grady, Denise (March 29, 2010). "Overhaul Will Lower the Costs of Being a Woman". The New York Times.
  121. ^ Shear, Michael D. (March 24, 2010), "Obama signs executive order on abortion out of sight of media glare", The Washington Post, Retrieved March 24, 2010
  122. ^ "White House Defends Abortion-related Executive Order, Even as Obama Signs it", Fox News, March 24, 2010, Retrieved March 24, 2010
  123. ^ "Obama issues executive order on abortion", UPI.com, March 21, 2010, Retrieved March 21, 2010
  124. ^ Montgomery, Lori & Murray, Shailagh (March 21, 2010) "In deal with Stupak, White House announces executive order on abortion", The Washington Post, Retrieved March 21, 2010
  125. ^ AAUW Stands with the Women of Wal-Mart During U.S. Supreme Court Hearing, American Association of University Women.
  126. ^ 10-277 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Questions Presented, Supreme Court of the United States.
  127. ^ "Next Steps to Comply with Health Care Reform". The National Law Review. Schiff Hardin LLP. 2012-10-10. Retrieved 2012-10-10.
  128. ^ "Affordable Care Act Rules on Expanding Access to Preventive Services for Women".
  129. ^ Kliff, Sarah (1 August 2012). "Five facts about the health law's contraceptive mandate". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 November 2012.
  130. ^ Hassan, Yasmeen (3 January 2013). "As Global Consensus Accelerates, Obama Strengthens Federal Law Protecting Girls in the Fight Against Female Genital Mutilation". The Huffington Post.
  131. ^ Willis, David (Jun 30, 2014). "Hobby Lobby case: Court curbs contraception mandate". BBC News. Retrieved Jun 30, 2014.
  132. ^ O'Donoghue, Amy Joi (Jul 5, 2014). "Group protests Hobby Lobby decision on birth control". Deseret News. Retrieved Jul 30, 2014.
  133. ^ >Haberkorn, Jennifer; Gerstein, Josh (Jun 30, 2014). "Supreme Court sides with Hobby Lobby on contraception mandate". Politico. Retrieved Jun 30, 2014.
  134. ^ See:
  135. ^ See:
  136. ^ 07/10/2015 12:45 pm EDT (July 10, 2015). "White House Finds Way Around Hobby Lobby Birth Control Decision". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2015-07-13.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  137. ^ Rankin, Kenrya. "This Policy Gives Native Women Equal Access to Emergency Contraception". Colorlines. Retrieved 2015-10-24.
  138. ^ Primack, Dan (2014-02-06). "Venture capital's stunning lack of female decision-makers". Fortune. Retrieved 2015-10-14.
  139. ^ Farhad Manjoo (March 27, 2015). "Ellen Pao Disrupts How Silicon Valley Does Business". The New York Times. Retrieved March 28, 2015. Ms. Klein argued that the Kleiner trial would become a landmark case for women in the workplace, as consequential for corporate gender relations as Anita Hill's accusations in 1991 of sexual harassment during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
  140. ^ Gannes, Liz (2015-02-18). "What's at Stake in the Ellen Pao Case". Recode. Retrieved 2015-10-16.
  141. ^ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 16-17, 19-20.
  142. ^ "Title VIII: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity - HUD". Portal.hud.gov. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
  143. ^ Justices Seem Split in Case on Birth Control Mandate, Adam Liptak, New York Times, March 23, 2016
  144. ^ Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14–1418, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3, 5 (2016) (per curiam).
  145. ^ Zubik, slip op. at 3-4.
  146. ^ Zubik, slip op. at 4.
  147. ^ Zubik, slip op. at 2-3 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).
  148. ^ "How Bad Does Domestic Violence Have to Be Before You Can't Have a Gun?". 2016-02-22. Retrieved 2016-06-27.
  149. ^ "Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights".
  150. ^ Lopez, German (27 June 2016). "The Supreme Court quietly handed gun control advocates a small victory".
  151. ^ Green, Emma (November 13, 2015). "A New Supreme Court Challenge: The Erosion of Abortion Access in Texas". Atlantic. Retrieved January 26, 2016.
  152. ^ a b "Text - H.R.5578 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress". Congress.gov. Retrieved 2016-10-13.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_women%27s_legal_rights_in_the_United_States_(other_than_voting)&oldid=749417532"