Case Law Review on Gender and Sexual Harassment

The 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause requires a hearing before terminating government welfare benefits to ensure fairness.

A college receiving federal funding through student loans is considered a recipient of federal financial assistance.

Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to all programs and activities at a college receiving federal funds, even if the funding is indirect.

The Supreme Court ruled that colleges receiving federal funding through student loans are subject to Title IX's non-discrimination requirement.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act broadened the scope of Title IX, requiring all programs and activities at a college to comply with non-discrimination based on sex, regardless of the source of federal funding.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees a welfare recipient the right to a hearing before benefits are terminated.

New York State's welfare termination process was deemed unconstitutional because it did not provide a fair hearing before termination.

The 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause guarantees a fair hearing before terminating government benefits to ensure procedural fairness.

The concept that educational rights are a protected property interest under the 14th Amendment due process clause, requiring notice and a hearing before suspension.

A test used to determine when due process requires a hearing before an administrative decision is made, balancing the individual's interest against the government's interest and the risk of error.

The individual's personal stake in the outcome of the administrative decision.

The probability that a significant error could occur in the current procedures used by the government.

The government's burden in providing procedural safeguards to ensure fairness.

A landmark case where the Supreme Court determined that a hearing is required before welfare benefits can be terminated.

The rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that ensure fairness in government proceedings and prevent arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

The requirement of providing a written notification and an opportunity to be heard before a significant deprivation of rights or property.

The Supreme Court recognized a woman's right to choose an abortion, but it's not absolute. The state's interest in protecting both the mother's health and the potential life of the fetus is equally important. This led to the creation of the trimester framework, which allows different levels of regulation at various stages of pregnancy.

The case involved a Texas law that prohibited abortions except when necessary to save the mother's life. This law was challenged as unconstitutional by a woman known as "Jane Roe."

The court examined historical attitudes towards abortion to understand the context and legal framework surrounding this issue.

The Hippocratic Oath emphasizes ethical medical conduct and prohibits doctors from performing abortions.

The common law, as it once stood, did not consider abortion before "quickening" (when the fetus begins to move) as a crime.

The state's compelling interest in protecting the fetus' life emerges as a crucial reason to regulate abortions.

The right to privacy encompasses the right to decide whether or not to have children, which is closely connected to abortion rights.

The Supreme Court recognized a woman's right to choose an abortion in the first trimester, while the second and third trimesters allowed for state regulation based on maternal health and fetal viability concerns.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law, arguing that while the right to think homosexually is protected by due process, the right to engage in sodomy is not a fundamental right and not protected by the Constitution's history or tradition.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the right of consenting adults to engage in private, intimate sexual conduct, regardless of their sexual orientation, under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The privacy protection under the Due Process Clause extends to personal choices regarding intimate relationships and sexual conduct.

The concept that the Court should avoid overturning deeply rooted social norms or traditional values unless there is a compelling reason.

The Court's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick emphasizes the deference to traditional values, even when those values may be considered outdated or unjust.

The court recognized that the criminalization of sodomy, especially in the context of private, consensual relationships, was rooted in outdated prejudices and violated the right to privacy.

The Lawrence v. Texas decision highlights the evolution of the Court's interpretation of privacy rights and demonstrates the shift away from reliance on traditional values in favor of individual autonomy and freedom.

The court's reasoning in Bowers v. Hardwick relied on a historical understanding of the Constitution and the concept of traditional values, focusing on a narrower interpretation of the right to privacy.

The EEOC considers the context and overall circumstances of the alleged conduct when evaluating sexual harassment claims.

The EEOC recognizes that casual interactions between genders, like flirting or jokes, are generally not considered actionable harassment unless they create a hostile work environment.

Employers are strictly liable (automatically responsible) for the harassing actions of their supervisors, even if they didn't know about it or forbid it. This applies regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known.

For co-worker harassment, employers are only liable if they knew or should have known about the misconduct and didn't take appropriate action.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

EOC guidelines state that Title VII doesn't cover personal relationships in the workplace that don't have a discriminatory effect. However, the “Totality of Circumstances” and “Context” are crucial to analyzing claims.

The EEOC analyzes the totality of circumstances in harassment cases and considers the context of the alleged misconduct.

The EEOC framework distinguishes between employer liability for supervisor harassment (strict liability) and co-worker harassment (negligence).

A legal standard used to determine the constitutionality of abortion regulations. It states that regulations can't place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.

The point at which a fetus is considered viable, meaning it has the potential to survive outside the womb. This is generally considered to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

A state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn, particularly after the fetus becomes viable. This interest can be used to justify some abortion regulations.

A provision requiring a married woman to notify her spouse about an abortion. The Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey struck down this provision as unconstitutional.

A Texas law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt struck down this requirement as an undue burden.

A Texas law that required abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards, a higher standard than typically required for outpatient clinics. The Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt struck down this requirement as an undue burden.

A requirement for physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a certain distance from the clinic where the procedure is performed. This requirement can limit access to abortion services.

The legal principle that regulations on abortion are constitutional if they don't place an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion. This principle was established in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case.