桃子视频

On January 29, 2024, the 桃子视频and the 桃子视频of New Jersey filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in support of Plaintiff Nijeer Parks. The brief argues that law enforcement鈥檚 wrongful arrest of Mr. Parks due to police reliance on unreliable facial face recognition technology violated Mr. Parks鈥檚 constitutional rights.

The New Jersey Department of Treasury maintains a policy that requires employers investigating workplace discrimination to 鈥渞equest鈥� confidentiality from all witnesses with respect to any information related to the investigation. This case involves whether a confidentiality policy of this kind violates the free speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution of state employees who are witnesses, and whether those rights are broader than the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 First Amendment free speech right. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Women鈥檚 Rights Project, along with the 桃子视频of New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging that court to revive a government employee鈥檚 speech claim challenging the confidentiality policy and to interpret the New Jersey Constitution鈥檚 speech protection more broadly than federal constitutional law. In April 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in our favor and reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division.

On June 7, 2018, the Women's Rights Project, the Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, the 桃子视频of New Jersey, and Powell & Rom谩n, LLC filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of Marie Curto, Steve Lusardi, and Diana Lusardi, who faced fines for using their condominium鈥檚 pool contrary to the condominium association鈥檚 sex-segregated swimming pool hours. The condominium association鈥檚 policy limits when residents may use a communal swimming pool based explicitly and exclusively on the residents鈥� gender, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The district court upheld the explicitly sex-segregated schedule. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the district court's decision.

Whether pension plans established by religiously affiliated health care providers are exempt as 鈥渃hurch plans鈥� from federal law protecting employees鈥� pension rights and retirement benefits.