NAWL Joins Amicus Brief Against Sex Discrimination

April 26, 2022

April 26, 2022 Update -- An opinion was rendered today in Jane Roe v. United States et. al. (now Caryn Devins Strickland v. United States et. al, due to the plaintiff's recent decision to drop the pseudonym).


As an organization committed to gender equality and civil rights, we applaud the court's decision today in Caryn Devins Strickland v. United States et. al. This landmark ruling recognizes, for the first time, the Constitutional right of federal judiciary employees to work in an environment free from sexual harassment.


As we noted in the amicus brief led by the Purple Campaign, the National Women's Law Center, and Legal Momentum, and in partnership with our pro bono counsel at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, the fact that the more than 30,000 employees of the federal judiciary currently lack federal statutory protections against workplace harassment and discrimination highlights the need to recognize such rights under the Constitution. We are pleased that the Court agreed and recognized Strickland's Constitutional "right to redress injuries caused by workplace discrimination, a right that is fundamentally equivalent to a cause of action and one that is vitally important considering the lack of alternative means of seeking relief for employees of the federal judiciary."


As our brief also highlighted, the facts of Strickland's case -- which included quid-pro-quo sexual harassment and related retaliation -- underscored the importance of ensuring that equal protection claims survive in situations like this one. We applaud the court for agreeing with us and properly recognizing, for the first time, that "the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause secures a federal judiciary employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace."

Despite the historic nature of this ruling, the Court's opinion highlights the continuing need for legislative and policy reform to protect federal judiciary employees. At the same time that it recognized Strickland's substantive Constitutional rights, the Court also held that certain defendants are immune from these claims and that specific remedies -- including back pay -- remain unavailable under existing law. We, therefore, urge Congress to enact the Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021 (the "JAA") to ensure that federal judiciary employees like Strickland have the same rights and remedies available to private sector employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to employees of the other two branches of the U.S. government.


For additional information about our amicus brief see here.


August 26, 2021 -- NAWL joined the Purple Campaign, Legal Momentum, National Women’s Law Center, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and other interested organizations, in filing an Amicus Brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of Appellant Jane Roe in Roe v. United States of America et al. Both Roe’s brief and the Purple Campaign’s amicus brief detail the pervasive sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and retaliation to which Roe was subjected from early 2018 through March 2019 when she was constructively discharged from her position.




April 30, 2026
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais , ruling 6–3 that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In reaching that decision, the Court narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may be used to remedy racial vote dilution, despite prior findings that Louisiana’s earlier maps likely infringed on the voting rights of Black residents. This decision marks a serious setback for voting rights and democratic participation. For nearly six decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our legal system’s effort to confront and remedy structural discrimination in the electoral process. By restricting the tools available to address unequal representation, the Court’s ruling makes it harder to correct long standing disparities in who has a voice in our elections. In a dissent read aloud from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court’s decision undermines one of the last effective tools for protecting fair representation. Describing the ruling’s impact on the Voting Rights Act, she wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter,” unable to fulfill its core purpose. She highlighted that a democracy cannot function as promised when the law prevents meaningful remedies for electoral systems that lock some communities out of political power. NAWL is committed to a democracy that works for everyone, supported by a legal system that recognizes discrimination and acts to correct it. As lawyers, judges, advocates, and scholars, we understand that voting rights are foundational to all other rights. NAWL will continue to engage its members on the implications of this decision through education and dialogue. We invite NAWL members to continue this important conversation by attending our session “ Louisiana v. Callais : Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy” at NAWL’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago on July 22–23 . Hear from Jessica Ellsworth (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Hogan Lovells), Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund), Franita Tolson (Dean of USC Gould School of Law), and Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy at Brennan Center for Justice). Our expert panel will examine the implications of this decision and its future impact on voting rights and the rule of law.
March 30, 2026
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
January 1, 2026
Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
December 17, 2025
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
Columns of a classical building with ornate carvings against a clear blue sky.
October 7, 2025
Perkins v. State of Montana
Stone steps leading up to a building with columns, in natural light.
September 10, 2025
Metropolitan School District of Martinsville v. A.C.
More Posts