Skip to main content

North America

ID
1007
Level
Global Region

People v. Whitfield

The defendant plead guilty to violating an order of protection and sentenced to conditional discharge for a period of 12 months. Within that year, the State tried to revoke the conditional discharge alleging that the defendant had again harassed his ex-wife. The circuit court of the county revoked the discharged and sentenced the defendant to twelve months’ probation with the condition of two days’ imprisonment and sixty hours of community service.

Perdomo v. Holder

In 1991 Lesly Yajayra Perdomo (“Perdomo”), a citizen and native of Guatemala, joined her mother in the United States. In April 2003 the Immigration and Naturalization Service charged her as removable because she unlawfully entered the United States in 1991. Perdomo conceded removability but requested asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Pierce v. City of Humboldt

The plaintiff was a police officer with the Humboldt Police Department. While off duty, she ran into an ex-boyfriend against whom she had a protective order. Based on this encounter, she filed a criminal charge against him for violating the order. The chief of police commenced an internal affairs investigation into her charges, and her ex-boyfriend filed a criminal charge against her for filing a false charge. While both charges were pending, the plaintiff informed the chief of police that she was pregnant.

Pitts-Baad v. Valvoline Instant Oil Change (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)

In Pitts-Baad v. Valvoline Instant Oil Change, the plaintiff was an assistant manager being considered for promotion, but failed to complete the required courses. While eight months pregnant, she fell at work and reported the injury on her doctor’s advice. After returning from maternity leave, she experienced a hostile environment marked by distrust and long delays in being allowed to pump breast milk. Following an incident in which she did not follow proper procedures during an oil change, her employment was terminated.

Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer (N.J. 2000)

In the case Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 165 N.J. 609 (2000), the Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the constitutionality of the state’s Parental Notification for Minors Seeking Abortion Act. The statute required a physician to provide at least 48 hours’ advance notice to a parent before performing an abortion on a minor, without imposing a similar requirement for minors seeking prenatal care or childbirth.

Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist

A Tennessee criminal statute required that physicians warn their patients that “abortion in a considerable number of cases constitutes a major surgical procedure,” that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital, and that women wait two days after meeting with a physician to receive an abortion. The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of these provisions. The Davidson County Circuit Court struck down as unconstitutional the statutory warning and two-day waiting period as unconstitutional, but allowed the hospitalization requirement.

Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v State of Florida

Florida health care providers challenged a Florida law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy on the grounds that the ban violated Florida’s constitutional right to privacy. The law allowed two exceptions to the ban: (i) two doctors, or one if a second is not available, provide written certification that the abortion is necessary to save the woman’s life or prevent “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function […] other than a psychological condition” or (ii) the fetus has a fatal abnormality.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland Inc. v. Iowa Board of Medicine

The Iowa Board of Medicine (“Board”) passed a rule of professional practice that prohibited telemedicine abortions, which are non-surgical abortions overseen by a medical practitioner via audio-visual connection. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland brought a claim against the Board citing that the prohibition of telemedicine abortions violated the equal protection clause by placing an undue burden on women seeking to exercise their right to terminate a pregnancy.

Subscribe to North America