United States

Plaintiff-ex-employee challenged the jury instruction given by the Superior Court, which directed the jury to find in plaintiff’s favor in a discrimination case brought pursuant to Wash. Rev.

Here, the plaintiff was issued a final protective order against the defendant. Subsequent to the issuance of this order, the plaintiff had filed a statement with the police that the defendant went to her work, called her work, and called her parents. Further, a witness observed the defendant at the plaintiff’s home, and he was seen to drive by her home on seven occasions. The defendant was convicted of violating the protective order and complied with it thereafter. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested a five-year extension to the order and the defendant requested a hearing.

In the case Mancini v. Township of Teaneck, 179 N.J. 425, 846 A.2d 596 (2004), the plaintiff, a police officer, alleged pervasive sex discrimination and sexual harassment during her employment with the Township of Teaneck Police Department. From the beginning of her service, she was subjected to a hostile work environment created by both supervisors and coworkers who believed that policing was not a job for women.

The Marriage Equality Act amended New York’s Domestic Relations Law to make civil marriage equally available to couples regardless of gender. It states that a marriage is valid whether the spouses are of the same or different gender, and bars officials from denying a marriage license based on the applicants’ gender identity.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Massey v. Dorning, 611 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (N.D. Ala. 2020), examined gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims brought by Sonya Massey, a deputy sheriff in Madison County. Massey alleged that the Sheriff’s Office fostered a culture hostile to women, where female employees faced sexual harassment, unsafe assignments, and retaliatory actions for reporting misconduct.

The plaintiff-appellants’ sons were members of their middle school basketball team who were victims of sexual harassment by their teammates. The harassment ranged from arguably innocent locker room pranks to sexual violence. The plaintiffs sued the Wayne County Board of Education, alleging that the school board was deliberately indifferent to student-on-student sexual harassment in violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. The District Court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarded the plaintiffs $100,000 each in damages.

Before the parties’ divorce, the plaintiff filed two domestic violence complaints against the defendant. Following the first complaint, police officers confiscated the defendant’s firearms and his firearms purchaser identification card. The weapons were later returned after the matter was resolved. While the divorce proceedings were pending, a second complaint was filed after the plaintiff went to the defendant’s home to pick up their son. Police again seized the defendant’s weapons.

Two school districts scheduled their girls’ high school soccer season in the spring and the boys’ high school soccer in the fall. The effect of that schedule was that boys but not girls were able to compete in the regional and state championship games. Parents of the female students sued the school districts pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 and 20 U.S.C. section 1681 (“Title IX”), which requires schools, among others, to provide equal athletic opportunities to its male and female students.

A mother and daughter sued an abortion provider for having performed an abortion on the minor daughter without first obtaining her parents’ approval, which was in violation of a Tennessee statute. The daughter was 17 years and ten months old at the time. The trial court dismissed the complaint because the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the abortion rights of minors. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed, finding that the statute in question violated the privacy rights of minors seeking abortions.