Women of Color Will Suffer the Consequences of Lifetime Appointment for Brown

Statement of NOW Action Vice President Olga Vives

June 7, 2005

Vice President Action Olga Vives at rally on Janice Rogers Brown

As a woman, as a Latina, and representing hundreds of thousands of members and supporters of NOW, I am here to speak against the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Janice Rogers Brown has a history of hostility toward affirmative action, reproductive rights, civil rights, disability rights and government programs, such as Social Security. Her court opinions reflect extremist ideologies, and her confirmation will make it harder for women and people of color to challenge discrimination. Her record is clear - she is out of the mainstream and feels no pain for people who are victims of discrimination.

For example, in the case Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., a California trial court found that the employer had used racial slurs toward Latino employees, thus creating a hostile work environment. Brown dissented from this majority opinion, arguing that the First Amendment protects the use of racial slurs in the workplace, even when it involves illegal race discrimination. Her opinion went so far as to suggest that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination, violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional. Unlike most Americans, she actually believes that racial taunts are acceptable behavior in the workplace - this kind of thinking goes way beyond the mainstream. A woman that condones hate speech on the job should not have this job - a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

In her decisions, Judge Brown has demonstrated her hostility to abortion rights. In a recent case, Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, Brown was the sole dissent in a case which found that Catholic Charities was violating a state contraceptive prescriptive equity statute. She stated that if employees felt that they were discriminated against they were free to move to "more congenial employment."

In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Daniel E. Lundgren, where the majority of the California Supreme Court struck down a law requiring minors to obtain a parent's permission to obtain an abortion. She suggested in her dissent that the federal Constitution restricts states from recognizing a right to privacy in their constitutions and that the majority's opinion allowed courts to "topple every cultural icon, to dismiss all societal values, and to become final arbiters of traditional morality." Since then, Brown has listed her dissent in this case as one of her ten most significant opinions.

Women, and in particular women of color, who more often than not feel the double sling of discrimination, will suffer the consequences of a Judge Brown on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals or any lifetime appointment to the federal bench. She must be soundly rejected.

On behalf of women, of Latinas and Latinos in the United States, we ask the U.S. Senate and, in particular, we ask Senator Ken Salazar to cast a firm NO vote on Janice Rogers Brown. We ask Senator Mel Martinez of Florida to remember that only through fairness and opportunities can immigrant Latinos like himself realize the dream of a just and fair society for all. Judge Brown is firm on denying us opportunities and our fair day in court. Defy your party, Senator Martinez, and vote NO on Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

###

Sign up to receive press releases by email.