Texas

T.L.R. was an eighth-grader at the Texas School for the Deaf and was dating B.C., also an eighth-grader at the School. After about two months of dating, B.C. approached T.L.R. and told her he wanted to have sex with her; she responded “no” twice and tried to get away from him by entering the girls’ restroom. B.C. followed her into the restroom. T.L.R. told him “I don’t want this” but B.C. took her clothes off, took his clothes off, told her to lie down on the floor, and penetrated her. T.L.R.’s father sought and obtained a protective order against B.C. on behalf of his daughter. B.C.

In Bell v. Low Income Women of Texas, physicians and clinics sued the Commissioner of Health, claiming that Texas Medical Assistance Program’s (“TMAP”) abortion funding restrictions for indigent women violated their constitutional rights under the Equal Rights Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Texas Constitution, and their rights to privacy.

Ira Clements lived with his elderly wife, Helen, who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Their daughter, Linda, believed that her father was abusing her mother. When Linda arrived at the family home with the intention of removing her mother from Ira’s home, Ira grabbed Linda by her hair and drew back his fist as though he would hit her. As Helen tried to sneak out of the house, Ira grabbed her arm and pulled her back into the house. When police officers arrived to investigate, Ira admitted to them that he grabbed Linda’s hair and stated that he “should have beat

Kathy Nieves sued her coworker, Jeremy Cox, for sexual assault. She also sued her employer, East Texas Medical Center EMS (ETMC) for, among other things, sexual harassment. Kathy was an EMT and Jeremy was a paramedic who would work shifts with her. Kathy alleged sexual assault by Jeremy, arguing that he had subjected her to forced sexual contact at her apartment, and sexual harassment during the work shift when Jeremy allegedly tried to hold her hand and have other unwanted contact with her while at work.

Molly Harvill sued her coworker, Oscar Rogers, for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Harvill alleged that Rogers grabbed and kissed her, shot rubber bands at her breasts, and rubbed against her at work after repeated requests for him to stop. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Rogers because Harvill didn’t allege that she was harmed as a result of the assault. However, th

The plaintiff-respondent worked as a sales representative for Hoffman-La Roche Inc. (the defendant-petitioner). The plaintiff alleged that her supervisor told sexually inappropriate jokes and asked inappropriate questions on multiple occasions. She submitted complaints to Human Resources, and an investigation was initiated. During the plaintiff’s performance review, her supervisor yelled at her and repeatedly criticized her performance, giving her a below average rating. Shortly after, the company fired both the plaintiff’s supervisor and the plaintiff.

A pregnant minor applied for judicial bypass to have an abortion without notifying her parents. The trial court denied the application on a form, but made no ruling and no findings of fact on one of the bases for judicial bypass—whether notifying her parents would lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor. Under the Texas Family Code, the court was required to issue a ruling and written findings of fact and conclusions of law within two business days after the application was filed.

A pregnant minor filed an application for judicial bypass to receive an abortion without notifying her parents. The district court did not rule on the application or make findings of fact, but issued a writing that sua sponte concluded that the parental bypass law was unconstitutional.

A pregnant minor applied for judicial bypass to have an abortion without notifying her parents. The trial court denied her application, finding that she was neither mature nor well-informed enough to consent to an abortion without parental notification. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, finding that Doe showed that she was sufficiently well-informed. The trial court specifically denied Doe’s application because she was allegedly unaware of the intrinsic benefits of alternatives to abortion such as parenting and adoption.

Sherri Menefee filed an employment sex discrimination and retaliation case against her employer, McCaw Cellular Communications. Sherri was hired as the manager of the IT department for the company’s southwestern region. She alleged that her boss discriminated against her and that she was subjected to a less favorable environment based on her sex and was terminated shortly after complaining about the discrimination.