discrimination

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

Issues

Does a public accommodation law violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it compels an artist to create custom designs that go against her beliefs?

This case asks the Supreme Court to balance public accommodation anti-discrimination laws and First Amendment rights. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) limits a public accommodation’s ability to refuse services to a customer based on their identity, such as sexual orientation. 303 Creative LLC and its owner Lorie Smith argue that CADA violates their First Amendment rights to free artistic expression and religious belief. Respondent Aubrey Elenis, Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, counters that CADA regulates discriminatory commerce, not speech, and thus does not violate 303 Creative LLC’s First Amendment rights. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for LGBTQ+ rights, freedom of speech and religion, and creative expression.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) limits a place of public accommodation’s ability to refuse services to a customer based on their identity. 303 Creative LLC v.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Nelson Tebbe for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279

Issues

Do disabled child plaintiffs who claim that a K-12 school discriminated against them based on their disability need to satisfy a higher burden of proof than other types of plaintiffs when bringing a claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine which standard to apply to claims of disability discrimination against students in K-12 schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Currently, multiple federal circuit courts apply the “bad faith or gross misconduct” standard, which is a higher standard than the “deliberate indifference” standard. A.T. and G.T., on behalf of their minor daughter A.J.T., argue that the “deliberate indifference” standard is more consistent with the text of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and with the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, and Osseo School Board counter that the precedential case that applied the “bad faith or gross misconduct” standard is still good law, and the standard does not rely on IDEA but instead a proper reading of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The outcome of this case has implications for the protection of students with disabilities against discrimination while in K-12 public schools.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education. 

A.J.T. suffers from Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a type of epilepsy that causes seizures and diminished intellectual capacities. A.J.T. v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Abbot v. Perez

Issues

By adopting court-created remedial interim redistricting plans, did the Texas legislature engage in intentional racial discrimination, vote dilution, and racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and does the Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?

 

After a federal court struck down the Texas State Legislature’s redistricting plans as racially discriminatory and issued substantially similar interim plans for the 2012 election, the Legislature adopted those interim plans as law. However, Texas Voters (both individual voters and organizations) claim that these plans are still infected by discriminatory intent and effect. Texas argues that its Legislature did not engage in racial discrimination, vote dilution, or racial gerrymandering. Further, Texas insists that when its new Legislature repealed the old plans and adopted court-created new plans, any purported discriminatory intent was eliminated. Voters counter that the Supreme Court should adhere to the lower court’s finding of discrimination, which was not cleansed by a legislative workaround that essentially reenacted the original, problematic plans. This case requires the Supreme Court to determine when a state legislature exhibits a discriminatory intent in reconfiguring its electoral districts and how deeply that intent permeates into subsequent legislation. Further, this case may redefine the parameters for courts to evaluate redistricting, balancing the needs to protect voters’ rights and preserve state sovereignty. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted a redistricting plan originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether the Texas legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution when it adopted Congressional District 27 in 2013 after the district court found, in 2012, that CD27 did not support a plausible claim of racially discriminatory purpose and did not dilute Hispanic voting strength because it was not possible to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in the region; and (4) whether the Texas legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering in Congressional District 35 when it simply adopted the district unchanged as part of the court-ordered remedial plan.

In 2011, Texas’ 82nd Legislature (“Legislature”) proposed Plans C185 and H283 (“2011 Plans”) to change its voting districts before the 2012 elections. Perez v. Abbott, 274 F. Supp. 3d 624, 632 (W.D. Tex. 2017).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

Issues

Can an individual who proclaims oneself as an Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” and has no intention to visit a place of public accommodation legally challenge that place of accommodation for failing to provide information on disability accessibility?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide on the Article III standing question where a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) “tester” challenges a hotel reservation website’s failure to disclose information about disability accessibility. Petitioner Acheson Hotels, LLC argues that Respondent Deborah Laufer lacks standing because she failed to assert any concrete, stigmatic, or emotional injury resulting from the missing accessibility information. In opposition, Laufer contends that Acheson’s discrimination against disabled people is the exact type of harm Congress intended to prevent by enacting the ADA. While Acheson further asserts that the case is moot because the website now complies with the ADA regulations, Laufer counters that she suffers continuing injury from third-party websites. The outcome of this case will affect the balance between protecting small businesses from excessive litigation and ensuring tester-plaintiffs’ role in effectively enforcing the ADA regulations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.

Respondent Deborah Laufer is disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Laufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC. at 264. She relies on a wheelchair or cane to move around and has visual impairment.

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0

affirmative action

Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment.

Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP

Issues

Did the South Carolina redistricting process violate the Equal Protection Clause in setting a racial target in the design process for one of its districts?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the district court panel erred in ruling that South Carolina’s Congressional District 1 (“CD1”) was a racial gerrymander prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellee the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (“the NAACP”) asserts that the panel correctly found that the redistricting board set a 17% black voting age population (“BVAP”) target for their new map of CD1 to create a partisan tilt favoring Republican candidates. Appellant Thomas Alexander (“Alexander”) asserts that racial data was not a factor in the redistricting process and that, instead, the designers of CD1 relied on political data, mainly the precinct-level voting patterns from the 2020 election. Thus, Alexander argues that CD1 does not violate equal protection jurisprudence which permits a political, but not racial, gerrymander. Because of the small majority the Republican Party holds in the US House of Representatives, this case has the potential to have a major shift on both South Carolina’s congressional delegation, but also the political tilt of the House as a whole.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent;

(2) whether the district court erred in failing to enforce the alternative-map requirement in this circumstantial case;

(3) whether the district court erred when it failed to disentangle race from politics;

(4) whether the district court erred in finding racial predominance when it never analyzed District 1’s compliance with traditional districting principles;

(5) whether the district court clearly erred in finding that the General Assembly used a racial target as a proxy for politics when the record showed only that the General Assembly was aware of race, that race and politics are highly correlated, and that the General Assembly drew districts based on election data; and

(6) whether the district court erred in upholding the intentional-discrimination claim when it never even considered whether—let alone found that—District 1 has a discriminatory effect.

In 2022, the South Carolina Senate adopted a reapportionment plan (“Senate Plan”) to redesign the congressional districts.  South Carolina State Conf. of the NAACP v Alexander at 6-7.  Although Congressional districts should have almost equal population, Congressional District No.

Additional Resources

  • Zack Montellaro, Supreme Court to hear racial redistricting case from South Carolina, Politico (May 15, 2023).
  • Caitlin Byrd, Federal judges strike down SC’s 1st Congressional District as racial gerrymandering, The Post and Courier (Jan. 6, 2023).
Submit for publication
0

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Issues

Do plaintiffs suing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act who are members of “majority groups” have to show “background circumstances” showing their employer discriminates against the majority?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a plaintiff suing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act who is a member of a majority group must provide “background circumstances” to show that their employer discriminates against majority groups. Ames argues that the background circumstances rule treats plaintiffs differently based on their protected characteristics, contradicting the goals of Title VII. The Ohio Department of Youth Services argues that the background circumstances rule is only a method for deciding individual cases and does not discriminate based on a protected characteristic. This case has important implications for how readily individuals can use the civil rights laws to sue, and how courts determine discrimination without direct evidence.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

In 2014, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“Department”) appointed Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, to be the Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA Administrator”); this was an at-will employment position which meant that she could be fired without cause. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs. at 2. Then in 2017, Ginine Trim, a gay woman, was assigned to be Ames’s new supervisor.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Bank of America v. Miami, 15-1111, Wells Fargo & Co. v. Miami, 15-1112 (consolidated)

Issues

Does a lawsuit against a bank satisfy the Fair Housing Act’s “zone of interest” and proximate cause requirements, where a municipality alleges harm to its fiscal interests from urban blight stemming from foreclosures caused by the bank’s discriminatory lending practices?

In this consolidated action, the Supreme Court will decide whether a city can sue a bank under the Fair Housing Act for discriminatory lending practices, and whether it can recover lost property tax revenues and funds spent addressing widespread foreclosures that the bank’s discriminatory practices allegedly caused. The City of Miami alleges, based on statistical analyses, that loans by Bank of America and Wells Fargo & Co. to minority borrowers were more than five times as likely to result in foreclosures than loans to white borrowers. The banks argue that the City of Miami falls outside the zone of interests required to obtain standing under the Fair Housing Act, and that any alleged causal relationship between the City’s financial losses and the discriminatory housing practices of the banks is too far a stretch to support a valid lawsuit. The City responds that it meets the broad standing requirements of the Fair Housing Act and should recover for its injuries because they are foreseeably and directly linked to the discriminatory lending practices of the banks. A victory by Miami could potentially overburden the courts with similar lawsuits and overextend judicial power; however, Miami’s defeat could leave the FHA under-enforced and cities underfunded to battle urban blight.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. By limiting suit to "aggrieved person[s]," did Congress require that an FHA plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact?
  2. The FHA requires plaintiffs to plead proximate cause. Does proximate cause require more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies?

MIAMI’S LAWSUIT AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA

Miami brought a Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) lawsuit against Bank of America, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, and Countrywide Bank (collectively, “Bank of America” or “the Bank”) on December 13, 2013, for discriminatory mortgage lending practices and unjust enrichment at the expense of Miami. See Miami v. Bank of America Corp., No.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Bank of America v. Miami, Wells Fargo & Co. v. Miami

Issues

Does a lawsuit against a bank satisfy the Fair Housing Act’s “zone of interest” and proximate cause requirements, where a municipality alleges harm to its fiscal interests from urban blight stemming from foreclosures caused by the bank’s discriminatory lending practices?

In this consolidated action, the Supreme Court will decide whether a city can sue a bank under the Fair Housing Act for discriminatory lending practices, and whether it can recover lost property tax revenues and funds spent addressing widespread foreclosures that the bank’s discriminatory practices allegedly caused. The City of Miami alleges, based on statistical analyses, that loans by Bank of America and Wells Fargo & Co. to minority borrowers were more than five times as likely to result in foreclosures than loans to white borrowers. The banks argue that the City of Miami falls outside the zone of interests required to obtain standing under the Fair Housing Act, and that any alleged causal relationship between the City’s financial losses and the discriminatory housing practices of the banks is too far a stretch to support a valid lawsuit. The City responds that it meets the broad standing requirements of the Fair Housing Act and should recover for its injuries because they are foreseeably and directly linked to the discriminatory lending practices of the banks. A victory by Miami could potentially overburden the courts with similar lawsuits and overextend judicial power; however, Miami’s defeat could leave the FHA under-enforced and cities underfunded to battle urban blight.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. By limiting suit to "aggrieved person[s]," did Congress require that an FHA plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact?
  2. The FHA requires plaintiffs to plead proximate cause. Does proximate cause require more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies?

MIAMI’S LAWSUIT AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA

Miami brought a Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) lawsuit against Bank of America, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, and Countrywide Bank (collectively, “Bank of America” or “the Bank”) on December 13, 2013, for discriminatory mortgage lending practices and unjust enrichment at the expense of Miami. See Miami v.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

Issues

Do Arizona’s voting policies that impact minorities and limit otherwise legal in-person and early voting violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), which provides relief against voting policies that result in discrimination against minority populations. The state of Arizona enacted two voting policies that limit the scope of both in-person and mail-in voting. Arizona’s laws allowed it to discard any ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day and criminalized collecting ballots for mailing purposes. Petitioners Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the state of Arizona  (“Arizona”) argue that these policies are racially neutral and do not discriminate against Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous communities. Respondent Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) contends that these laws disproportionately impacted or—in the case of the prohibition on ballot collection—targeted minority communities, and therefore violated the VRA. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine the extent of the protections granted by the VRA against discrimination as well as the validity of state laws seeking to address voter fraud.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and (2) whether Arizona’s ballot-collection law, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.

The state of Arizona permits both in-person voting at designated voting centers or precincts, and “early voting,” in which voters can either mail in a ballot or drop off ballots at designated locations. Democratic Nat’l Comm. v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to discrimination