Supreme Court Cases
1971
Reed vs. Reed
In this case, the United States Supreme Court rules for the first time ever that a law that discriminates against women is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court rules unanimously that a state law that provides that males must be preferred to females in estate administration denies women equal protection of the law. After the death of their adopted son Richard Lynn Reed, Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate; the Reeds were separated. The Idaho Probate Court ruled that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates, so Cecil was appointed administrator.
"Reed v. Reed." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 09 Dec. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Reed>.
"Reed v. Reed." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 09 Dec. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Reed>.
1977
Coker vs. Georgia
While serving several sentences for rape, kidnapping, one count of first degree murder, and assault, Ehrlich Anthony Coker escaped from prison. Coker broke into Allen and Elnita Carver's home near Waycross, Georgia, raped Elnita Carver and stole the family's vehicle. Coker was convicted of rape, armed robbery, and other offenses and was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the sentence. The Supreme Court holds that Georgia's law allowing a sentence of death for a convicted rapist is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
"Coker v. Georgia." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 May 2012. Web. 09 Dec. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coker_v._Georgia>.
"Coker v. Georgia." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 May 2012. Web. 09 Dec. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coker_v._Georgia>.
1991
United Auto Workers vs. Johnson Controls
Johnson Controls, Inc. manufactures batteries whose process requires exposure to high levels of lead. After discovering that eight of its female employees became pregnant while maintaining blood lead levels in excess of those thought safe by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Johnson barred all its female employees - accepting those with medically documented infertility - from engaging in tasks that require exposure to lead in access of recommended OSHA levels. The United Automobile Workers (UAW) challenged Johnson's notion- protection policy as sexually discriminatory in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The case holds that women must be allowed to make their own decisions about pregnancy and dangerous work, and as long as women can perform their jobs, employers may not exclude them from certain kinds of work based on expressions of concern for children they might not even conceive.
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 December 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1215>.
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 December 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1215>.