How would you respond to the following statement?

Part A-Introduction

Greetings to all! My name is Tara L. Dymarczyk. I live in Connecticut close to Yale University. I have two grown children. My son, David, is in the United States Air Force. He is a Staff Sergeant working as an Air Traffic Controller and currently serving at Ramstein, AFB on special detail as an International TERPS Specialist. David takes classes at AMU and he in fact, highly recommended AMU to me.

I also have a daughter, Annie who is a senior at the college I graduated from in New Haven, Connecticut (Albertus Magnus). She is studying pre-med and is doing excellent in her studies. She is thinking of pursuing her Master's in Public Health.

I have an Associate's Degree in Business Administration, a Bachelor's Degree in Communications, and a post-Bachelor's certificate in paralegal studies. My work experience has been that I had worked as a plaintiff's personal injury paralegal for a private law firm (right out of college for the same firm for 25 years). I have extensive litigation experience (medical malpractice, legal malpractice, slip and falls, automobile accidents, workers' compensation and social security disability matters). During my time with the plaintiff's personal injury firm, I also mentored and trained legal students, law clerks and staff.

I have also taught at a local post secondary school in a certificate program training paralegals and medical assistants in a law and ethics course. I love to help students learn and I especially love when a student grasps a concept and the proverbial "light bulb" goes off.

At this time, I work full time (remotely) for a major automobile and homeowner's insurance company in the law and regulation department as a litigation services paralegal in their Connecticut Client Legal Services office. I have been at this job for 6 years. My hope is to obtain my Master's in Legal Studies to be able to continue to train and hopefully teach as an adjunct on-line or in the Community College System. I am also exploring the next step in my education which might include the pursuit of an Executive Juris Doctorate or Doctorate in Leadership and Management. I love to learn and while I do have some experience in Tort law, I still can always learn more!

I am also a certified 200 hr + yoga instructor. I provide guided meditation and yoga classes to my law and regulation peers.

Finally, I acknowledge that I have read and understand the course syllabus.

I can't wait to go through this journey during the next eight weeks!

A warm welcome and kind regards,

Tara

Part B-Equal Rights Amendment

The laws that cover gender discrimination stem from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, found in Title 42 U.S.C. 2000, and following. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) oversees enforcement of TItle VII claims. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was drafted approximately 100 years ago, in 1923. Two leaders of the womens' suffrage movement believed that the philosophy of gender equality was paramount to bring equality to women. The movement gained traction when the 19th Amendment was adopted. Deadlines to ratify the amendment have come and gone and hurdles still remain, like the movement to rescind certain states' ratification of the ERA.

The ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment can't help but make a positive impact on gender discrimination in the workplace. Women have and still do historically make less money, even though they might have the same or more education than men. Unfortunately, women who are said to make up 50% of the population, only account for 20% of those in governmental law making positions, possibly contributing to the inability to get adequate laws promoting gender discrimination on the books.

Another positive impact the ratification of the ERA could have is that other policies deriving from gender equality rights could be on the horizon. It could arguably be said that it would support the advancement of transgender rights, elimination of pay inequity, address the limitations encountered by working women and mothers to be; women of color and disproportionate wage workers.

Given some contrarian viewpoints, scholars do argue that there is something referred to as "de facto ERA" . This refers to a body of Supreme Court precedents that have made sexual discrimination illegal under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and adversaries against the ERA believe it is not necessary to have the ERA.

Turning to legal scholars in constitutional jurisprudence, it is helpful to consult the body of work of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG), as she was a proponent of gender equality jurisprudence and civil procedure. RBG believed that constitutional authority given by the ERA carries much more weight than that of Supreme Court precedents. It had been her hope that inasmuch as she was for women's rights, she was also for a robust and living constitution. One in which there would be satisfying relationships that didn't necessarily fit in with preconceived gender roles.

As discussed in this week's lesson, the judicial standard of review would change from intermediate scrutiny to strict scrutiny. Any time the Court looks at scrutiny it does so with the mindset of finding out whether a law is constitutional or not. It also tests the constitutionality of the law by determining the basis for discriminatory conduct whether it serves a legitimate, important or compelling purpose under the law.

Currently, intermediate scrutiny is applied to gender, unlike race or religion, or national origin, which is subject to strict scrutiny.

Essentially this means that if the EPA is not ratified, discriminatory conduct cannot be afforded constitutional protections because it cannot be held to strict scrutiny. In other words, under the test of strict scrutiny the law will be applied to hold that certain conduct is unconstitutional.

If something is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, then there is really no reason to believe that there is a protected class.

The way that positive changes can be implemented in the fight for gender equality is enhanced by Constitutional protections. Litigation can only carry the issue so far. So in summary I believe that the ERA can effectuate positive changes in the workplace that are longer lasting and more permanent than litigated cases of precedent.