Women+and+Equal+Rights

= Women and Equal Rights =

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. -States can not discriminate based on race -Has expanded -Lets follow the timeline of how it has expanded and applied to people!!!


 * Muller v. Oregon (1908) **
 * Ap Gov Units || Constitution, Bill of Rights ||
 * Keywords || Due process- the requirement that the state respects all legal rights owed to a person ||
 * Mnemonic Device || Women don’t have MULLEts often, just like this case doesn’t get overturned. ||
 * Background || Oregon enacted a law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. ||
 * Question || Does the Oregon law violate a woman’s freedom of contract implicit in the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment? ||
 * Answer || The court unanimously found the there was nothing unconstitutional about the Oregon law. The factory and laundry owners claimed that there was no reasonable connection between the law and public health, safety, or welfare. In a famous brief in defense of the Oregon law, attorney Louis Brandeis elaborately detailed expert reports on the harmful physical, economic and social effects of long working hours on women. Brewer’s opinion conveyed the accepted wisdom of the day: that women were unequal and inferior to men. ||
 * Significance || Even though this court case ruling had a negative outcome for women’s rights it had a positive effect. This court case ignited a widespread public discussion of women’s rights and gender equality. ||
 * Policy Impact || The ruling was negative in that it expressed an opinion of inequality between men and women. Claiming that the ruling was set in place to “protect” women, this result only upheld the opinion of the day that women are the lesser sex. ||


 * Griswald v. Connecticut 1965 **
 * Ap Gov Units || Civil Rights and Liberties, public policy, political beliefs ||
 * Keywords || contraceptives- something that prevents pregnancy (eg a device or drug) ||
 * Mnemonic Device || WALDo needed counselling from being lost so much. ||
 * Background || Connecticut had a strict policy of anti birth control and had a law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. The Executive Director of planned parenthood (Griswald) and her colleagues were convicted for providing this service. ||
 * Question || Does the Constitution protect privacy of married people to be counseled in the use of contraceptives even if the state law outlaws it? ||
 * Answer || In a 7-2 decision, the Court decided that the Constitution does provide for some privacy rights throughout the Bill of Rights and so the Connecticut law was unconstitutional. ||
 * Significance || This case decided that couples have to right to privacy and expanded/defined how the Bill of Rights applied to the people, so selective incorporation was key here. ||
 * Policy Impact || It allowed couples to have to right to privacy, and so people could not ban them from the use of contraceptives. This case also made policy makers consider to what extent they were to go into people’s lives. ||

Fourteenth amendment- extends the Bill of rights to the States mandatory- required ||
 * Reed v. Reed 1971 **
 * Ap Gov Units || Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, constitutional underpinnings ||
 * Keywords || Equal Protection-All people are the same in the eyes of the law
 * Mnemonic Device || Reed and reed made their son read so he died and they got his stuff. ||
 * Background || The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court. ||
 * Question || The question of this case was whether or not the Idaho Probate Code violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. ||
 * Answer || Yes, in a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex." ||
 * Significance || This case proved that women and men were equal under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It basically protected women from discrimination based on sex. ||
 * Policy Impact || Women (and men) were protected from sex discrimination. This affected opportunities for women and men. Because it was decided the 14th amendment protected women’s rights, later decisions did not favor women or men because of sex. ||


 * Roe v. Wade 1973 **
 * Ap Gov Units || Civil Rights, institutions of government. ||
 * Keywords || Due Process Clause ||
 * Mnemonic Device || Roe and wade= row and wade = things you do in the ocean= doctors like the ocean= doctors give abortions. ||
 * Background || Roe wanted to have an abortion but Texas said she couldn’t because you could only have an abortion to save a woman’s life. This did not apply to her. ||
 * Question || The question was whether or not the Constitution allowed women to have abortions. ||
 * Answer || In a 7-2 vote for Roe, the Supreme Court decided that a woman could have an abortion in the earlier months of her pregnancy. Later in her pregnancy she could have an abortion with some restrictions. It was decided mainly on the Due Process of the the 14th amendment ||
 * Significance || The decision made abortion legal in the United States. ||
 * Policy Impact || The Right to privacy was recognized to include a women’s right to her own body. States laws that outlawed abortion were now invalid. ||


 * Craig v. Boren 1976 **
 * Ap Gov Units || Institutions of government, civil rights & civil liberties ||
 * Keywords || Strict Scrutiny- standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional.

intermediate scrutiny rational basis review ||
 * Mnemonic Device || Craig was BOREd because he couldn’t get his beer. ||
 * Background || An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory. The Oklahoma courts said that this was ok and did not violate the equal protection clause. ||
 * Question || The question of this case was whether or not the Oklahoma statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women. ||
 * Answer || Yes it does. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court said that the the rule was unconstitutional. The Court decided that the 21st amendment did change when or how the Equal Protection Clause applied. ||
 * Significance || This case established intermediate scrutiny as use for making gender decisions in certain court cases. ||
 * Policy Impact || Intermediate scrutiny determined that for later cases was a new level of scrutiny, between the two used before. It allowed the courts to decide if a certain decision was important for the government policies and rules. ||


 * Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) **
 * Ap Gov Units || Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights ||
 * Keywords || Sexual Harassment ||
 * Mnemonic Device || Meritor Money ||
 * Background || Mechelle Vinson was fired from her job at a Meritor Savings Bank. She sued her boss Sidney Taylor, the Vice President of the bank. Vinson said that she was sexually harassed during her four years at the bank. She argued that such harassment created a “hostile working environment” and was covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Vinson sought injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages against Taylor and the bank. ||
 * Question || Did the Civil Rights Act prohibit the creation of a “hostile environment” or was it limited to tangible economic discrimination in the workplace? ||
 * Answer || The justices voted unanimously for Vinson. The Court held that the language of Title VII was “not limited to ‘economic’ or ‘tangible’ discrimination, “finding that Congress intended” to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women’s in employment..”The Court noted that guidelines issued by the EEOC specified that sexual harassment leading to noneconomic injury was a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. ||
 * Significance || The court found that under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII business can not create a hostile environment by discriminating against employees based on sex. This made sexual harassment illegal in the work environment because it creates a hostile environment for workers. ||
 * Policy Impact || The Court realized that plaintiffs could establish violations of the the Act “by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.” The Court declined to rule on the degree to which businesses could be liable for the specific employees. ||


 * United States v. Virginia (1996) **
 * Ap Gov Units || Constitution, Bill of Rights ||
 * Keywords || Fourteenth Amendment ||
 * Mnemonic Device || USvV there are only 3 letters just like the school only let in boys ||
 * Background || The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted a long and proud tradition as Virginia’s only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The United States brought a suit against Virginia and VMI alleging that the school’s male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. In response to the lawsuit Virginia proposed to create the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel program for women. ||
 * Question || Does Virginia’s creation of a women’s only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? ||
 * Answer || In a 7 to 1 decision, the Court held that VMI’s male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. It failed to show “exceedingly persuasive justification” for VMI’s gender-biased admissions policy. Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protections clause. Virginia failed to support its claim that single-sex education contributes to educational diversity because it did not show that VMI’s male-only admissions policy was created or maintained in order to further educational diversity. Furthermore, Virginia’s VWIL could not offer the women the same benefits as VMI offered men. The VWIL would lack the same rigorous military training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial opportunities, or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords its male cadets. ||
 * Significance || This was a gain for women’s rights because the court found that Virginia’s plan to create a separate school for women would not be the same as making VMI coed. Since the new institution would not have the same benefits as VMI they found Virginia’s plan to be unconstitutional. ||
 * Policy Impact || The court turned down the schools plan to create a separate school for women instead of making VMI coed. This outcome strengthens the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection clause. ||


 * Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education 2005 **
 * Ap Gov Units || Constitution, Bill of Rights ||
 * Keywords || Title IX- no person, on the basis of sex shall be excluded from or denied the priviliedges of an educational benefit ||
 * Mnemonic Device || Jackson is a guy who works for the police department, with fire, he got fired ||
 * Background || Roderick Jackson, a high school basketball coach, claimed he was fired for complaining that the girls basketball team he coached was denied equal treatment by the school. Jackson sued the Birmingham Board of Education in federal court, claiming his firing violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX bans sex discrimination in federally funded schools. Jackson said that Title IX gave him the right to sue because he suffered for reporting sex discrimination against others, despite the fact that he did not suffer from the sex discrimination. ||
 * Question || Does Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 allow suits for retaliation for complaints about unlawful sex discrimination? ||
 * Answer || The court voted 5 to 4 in favor of Jackson. The court held that Title IX allowed suits alleging retaliation for reporting sex discrimination. Such retaliation, the majority reasoned, constituted intentional discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX. Jackson there had the right under Title IX to pursue his claim in the court. ||
 * Significance || This allows people to report sexual discrimination without fear of any repercussions. This is important because it assures people the right to report sexual discrimination when they feel like it is happening in their environment. ||
 * Policy Impact || It strengthens Title IX because the courts used the terms of Title IX to decide the outcome of this case. The Birmingham Board of Education was in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The court addressed this issue when Jackson filed a lawsuit saying this law was violated and when the court found that it was indeed violated Birmingham had to fix it which strengthened Title IX because it showed that the courts were willing to enforce this law. ||

undue burden test- a test of the constitutionality of a law ||
 * Gonzales v. Carhart 2007 **
 * Ap Gov Units || political beliefs, public policy, civil rights & liberties ||
 * Keywords || Partial Birth abortions- a processs where an intact fetus is removed from the cervix
 * Mnemonic Device || Partial birth abortions make hearts sad. ||
 * Background || The Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 outlawed all partial birth abortions. The argument was that sometimes women needed an abortion at this stage because giving birth would affect their own health. ||
 * Question || Is the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 a violation of personal liberty because the act does not include exceptions for circumstances necessary for the mother? ||
 * Answer || No. In a 5-4 vote the supreme court justices decided it did not place on undue burden on the right to abortion. They also said that if there ever was a case where a woman’s health were to be affected, this should be brought to court and decided from there. ||
 * Significance || Gonzales v. Carhart decided that there can be some sort of regulation on a woman's body, because they decided that at a certain point there are two lives to be accounted for. ||
 * Policy Impact || This limited the Roe v. Wade decision and decided that it did not violate the 5th amendment of personal liberty, exhibiting that certain restrictions could be put on this. ||


 * Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007) **
 * Ap Gov Units || Political Beliefs and behaviors, civil rights and liberties, linkage institutions ||
 * Keywords || discrimination - the unfair treatment of people becuase of race, age, or sex ||
 * Mnemonic Device || You ledBETTER file the report within 180 days ||
 * Background || Lilly Ledbetter started work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company earning minimum wage. By the time she retired she was earning substantially less than the male workers. She claimed that this was because of a series of evaluations from years ago that she claimed were discriminatory. ||
 * Question || Under the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act does the Company owe Lilly Ledbetter money? ||
 * Answer || In a 5-4 decision the court denied the right to equal pay. The Court decided that the claim must be charged within the first 180 days, and she was therefore too late to make this claim. ||
 * Significance || This decision showed that the Court can use salutary provisions. ||
 * Policy Impact || The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was later put in place that allowed for wiggle room if someone had now known about the discrimination earlier. ||

Evolution of Women's Rights

The cases we have looked at clearly show how women's rights have expanded over different court cases to be more equal. From Muller v. Oregon where women did not have equal rights in the work place, to the use of contraceptives and a woman's right to her own body, women's rights have clearly expanded over time. Roe v. Wade deemed abortions constitutional. Privacy has been defined as has sexual harassment. Overall, these court cases show a general trend of expanding to help give women equal rights, as defined in the constitution, and decisions made after court rulings, in policy.

Works Cited: http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-landmark-court-cases-in-womens-rights.html http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_4/ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_628 <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_9 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_0 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_380 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_%26_Rubber_Co. http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/amendments/fourteenth-amendment-general/equal-protection/