Justice Ginsburg – Page 2 – Sandy Rosenberg

Before the News is Fit to Print

I plead guilty to introducing legislation after reading an article in the New York Times.
This time, however, my idea was fit to draft before the Times found it fit to print.

According to a front page story today about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

There is a framed copy of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 on a wall in her chambers. It is not a judicial decision, of course, but Justice Ginsburg counts it as one of her proudest achievements.

The law was a reaction to her dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, the 2007 ruling that said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed strict time limits for bringing workplace discrimination suits. She called on Congress to overturn the decision, and it did.

“I’d like to think that that will happen in the two Title VII cases from this term, but this Congress doesn’t seem to be able to move on anything,” she said.

In those two recent cases, a 5-4 majority made it more difficult to win a fair employment case by narrowing the definition of a supervisor whose actions constitute a violation of the law and requiring that retaliation be the motivating factor for an unlawful act, not one of several causes.

In July, I asked that legislation be drafted to prevent Maryland’s fair employment laws from being interpreted by our courts in the same way.
It’s not the first time that I’ve done this.

Maryland also passed a law in response to the Ledbetter case. Senator Jamie Raskin and I introduced the legislation.

I gave Justice Ginsburg a copy of House Bill 288, signed by Governor O’Malley.

It was not the first time I met her.

In the fall of 1974, I took her class on Sex Discrimination and the Law.

July 26 – Protections in the workplace and shovels in the ground

July 26, 2013 | by delsandy | featured, Sandy's 2013 Legislative Diary | No Comments

Public policy and public improvements were both on my plate this week.

I got my first bill draft for next year’s session, and I received the Mayor’s letter announcing her approval of the $8 million spending plan for slots revenue in the Pimlico Race Track neighborhoods.

Two Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the protections against workplace discrimination in the federal civil rights law prompted me to request this bill.

The prohibitions against illegal actions by supervisors and retaliation against an employee for objecting to an unlawful employment practice were significantly limited by these 5-4 decisions. Justice Ginsburg read from her dissents in open court.

My bill would ensure that Maryland’s fair employment law would not be limited by our courts in the same manner.

Since this legislation would likely be the first in response to these cases, I have asked civil rights lawyers to review the draft language.

A percentage of slots revenues is dedicated to the neighborhoods surrounding Pimlico Race Track. This was first proposed by Speaker Busch; enacted and amended by the efforts of Delegate Oaks, myself, and Senator Gladden and Delegate Carter; and implemented by neighborhood presidents sitting around a table to decide how these funds could benefit their communities.

Among the projects that will be funded with the $8 million generated in Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014:

* Acquisition, relocation, and demolition within the Major Redevelopment Area of the Park Heights Master Plan;

* Improvements to Northwest Park, the former University of Baltimore property on Rogers Av.;

* Building of a Community Center for Hatzalah, a volunteer emergency medical service; and

* Identifying and implementing a parking solution for the Reisterstown Road branch of the Pratt Library.

Next step: getting shovels in the ground.

A not so “impressive” column by former Governor Ehrlich

July 15, 2013 | by delsandy | featured, Sandy's 2013 Legislative Diary | No Comments

I don’t always read former Governor Ehrlich’s weekly column in the Sun. I hardly ever listen to right-wing talk radio.

For the same reason: accuracy is not their objective.

However, I did read yesterday’s column.

Below is my letter to the editor in response.

Dear Editors:

Former Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. is entitled to his belief that the Supreme Court did the right thing in striking at the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He is not entitled to misleadingly quote from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent.

“Even Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion cites the ‘impressive’ voting rights progress that has taken place in the impacted states [subject to pre-clearance of voting changes by the U.S. Justice Department],” writes the former governor.

This is what Justice Ginsburg wrote: “True, conditions in the South have impressively improved since passage of the Voting Rights Act. Congress noted this improvement and found that the VRA was the driving force behind it.”

The former governor owes an apology to the Justice and his readers.

Rational basis and a proud student

March 27, 2013March 27, 2013 | by delsandy | featured, Sandy's 2013 Legislative Diary | No Comments

Can a law prefer males over females in the administration of an estate to which they both have equal claims?

Bills dealing with trusts and estates are heard by my committee but not this one.

Idaho passed such a law in 1864.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the attorneys who successfully argued before the Supreme Court in 1971 that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

I first read that case, Reed v. Reed, as a law student in 1974 in a class entitled Sex Discrimination and the Law. The professor was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Much of the oral argument today on the Defense of Marriage Act dealt with whether DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause because it treated same-sex marriages differently than heterosexual unions.

Justice Ginsburg reminded the Court that “in the very first gender discrimination case, Reed v. Reed, the court did something it had never done in the history of the court under rational basis” [the test for determining that a law is constitutional if there is a rational basis for its enactment]. “The Court said this is rank discrimination and it failed.”

I attended today’s oral argument.

It made me very proud to have been a student of Professor Ginsburg.

Lilly Ledbetter and the facts of the case

October 18, 2012 | by delsandy | featured, Sandy's 2012 Legislative Diary | No Comments

Perhaps the President forgot the facts of the Supreme Court’s decision in Frontiero v. Richardson.

The Air Force had denied certain medical and dental benefits to the spouse of Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero. Her husband sued and won.

“Classifications based upon sex, like classifications based upon race, alienage, or national origin,” wrote Justice Brennan, “are inherently suspect, and must therefore be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny.”

The American Civil Liberties Union attorney arguing on behalf of Joseph Frontiero was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Lilly Ledbetter law also protects both men and women – from unequal pay and other discriminatory treatment in the workplace. President Obama was not alone Tuesday night when he referred only to women as the beneficiaries of the law. Many elected officials describe our civil rights laws as protecting only people of a certain gender or race.

(Since Governor Romney never mentioned the Ledbetter statute in his response, one can only guess how it was summarized in his debate binders.)

I think I know why I remember the facts in Frontiero. I read it in my law school class on Sex Discrimination and the Law. My professor was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.