finding that women constitute a cognizable class under § 1985(3) because “[g]ender is precisely the type of ‘immutable characteristic’ that has consistently been held an improper basis upon which to differentiate individuals in the allocation of rights.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that women constitute a cognizable class under § 1985(3) because “[g]ender is precisely the type of ‘immutable characteristic’ that has consistently been held an improper basis upon which to differentiate individuals in the allocation of rights.”
- holding that § 1985(3) applies only to membership in a class of “those so-called ‘discrete and insular’ minorities that receive special protection under the Equal Protection Clause because of inherent personal characteristics”
- explaining that “§ 1985(3) covers classes characterized by ‘some inherited or immutable characteristic’”
- remanding for consideration whether injunction improperly premised upon alleged violation of § 1985(3) should be reinstated on state grounds of trespass, nuisance, or tortious interference with business
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in parts I, IIA., IIC., Ill and IV of Judge Jones’ opinion. Since there is no state action here to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) claim, I find it unnecessary to address the issues raised in part IIB.