Whether civil rights statutes that prohibit federal financial recipients from discriminating on the basis of disability, race, and sex allow plaintiffs to be compensated for emotional distress injuries where they show that they were victims of discrimination.

On December 15, 2021, the ACLU, Gwinnett STOPP, and 14 other civil rights, students’ rights, and anti-violence organizations submitted an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit supporting Jane Doe, who was suspended twice by her high school in Georgia for violating a school code of conduct provision prohibiting sexual activity on school grounds after reporting that she had been sexually assaulted by a classmate. Jane Doe filed suit against the Gwinnett County Public Schools under Title IX claiming that her school acted with deliberate indifference to her reports of harassment and retaliated against her in the form of suspensions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district, holding that it did not act with deliberate indifference or retaliate, even though the court agreed that it was unclear if the school had ever evaluated whether the sexual contact was welcome.  Our amicus brief urges the appellate court to reverse the district court’s decision and permit Jane Doe to proceed with her Title IX claims. It highlights how K-12 students who report sexual harassment are frequently punished based on such reports and argues that disciplining students who report sexual harassment undermines Title IX’s core purpose of protecting access to education. The brief emphasizes that such punishment chills reporting of sexual harassment to the detriment of survivors and the entire school community and disproportionately impacts students of color. The brief was filed by Cooley and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project on behalf of the amici.

On January 26, 2022, the ACLU, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Fair Housing Alliance, and Free Press submitted an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of prospective tenants who alleged that Facebook’s advertising platform excluded them from receiving certain housing advertisements because of their race, gender, and other protected characteristics. The prospective tenants brought claims under the federal Fair Housing Act and analogous state civil rights laws. The ACLU’s amicus brief discussed the issue of “digital redlining” – otherwise known as the use of technology to perpetuate discrimination against historically marginalized groups – including through the use of ad-targeting tools on social media. In doing so, the amicus brief described the long history of discriminatory advertising practices in housing and employment, and how the same harms of discrimination arise from digital redlining through ad targeting tools on Facebook and other social media. The amicus brief also provided context on how the landlords’ use of Facebook’s ad platform constituted a form of digital redlining by excluding certain prospective tenants from viewing housing ads on the basis of their age and other protected characteristics. The amicus brief further argued that Facebook could not claim immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because Facebook itself created and developed content that gave rise to the civil rights violations. The brief was filed by All Rise Trial and Appellate on behalf of the amici.

Neuhtah Opiotennione v. Bozzuto Management Company, et al.

Isaak Olson, an active-duty Coast Guardsman and former cadet at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Coast Guard Academy’s policy prohibiting cadets from being parents. The Academy’s ban on parents forces all cadets who become parents to resign or be disenrolled, regardless of their circumstances and without exception.