UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — At Penn State Law, learning opportunities go beyond the classroom to help transform legal education into meaningful engagement. At the forefront of these advocacy efforts is the Penn State Law Civil Rights Appellate Clinic.
The Civil Rights Appellate Clinic provides intensive training in appellate advocacy by involving students in noncriminal civil rights cases before the state appellate courts, federal courts of appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Students conduct research, draft briefs, assist in case selection, develop substantive legal positions and plan appellate strategy.
Recently, the clinic, along with the Employment Law Group — a litigation boutique based in Washington, D.C. — filed a reply brief on behalf of plaintiff-appellant Megan Borovicka in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Under the guidance of Clinic Director and Clinical Professor of Law Michael Foreman, eight third-year clinical students worked on the brief: Leah Benne, Noah Eastman, Ben Garcia, Seth Hojnacki, Colin McGee, Temidoyin Olusa, Hannah Shorkey and Erika Uebelhor.
According to Borovicka, an attorney with the Labor, Employment and Administration Section of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), she initiated her initial action under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) after learning through a co-worker that he and other similarly situated male employees were paid a significantly higher base salary than her. The EPA seeks to prohibit sex-based wage discrimination between men and women who perform similar jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility. In response to Borovicka’s claims, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment asserting an affirmative defense that the difference in Borovicka’s pay was due to “factors other than sex.” The U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the motion for summary judgment. According to Borovicka, she and her counsel continued to fight for remedy, not only for herself, but for all other future plaintiffs who might become subject to gender-pay discrimination by their employers.
The clinic became involved with the case at the appellate stage in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, playing an instrumental role in the researching and drafting of Borovicka’s reply brief, which was filed in response to the Brief for Defendant-Appellee United States. Borovicka’s counsel reached out to the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic because it knew the clinic had experience in appellate work, Foreman said.
As the clinic awaits a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the students expressed that helping draft Borovicka’s reply brief was deeply meaningful and impactful work.
“It was a really cool and rewarding experience getting to work on a brief that could clarify the law and help people facing discrimination in the workplace,” McGee said..
This sentiment was shared by Uebelhor, who reflected on the big-picture implications that Borovicka’s EPA claim might have on entire classes of individuals.
“It was empowering to engage in legal advocacy for the benefit of a working-class individual,” she said.
Shorkey echoed this idea. “Despite the dedicated work of advocates and the huge advancements already made that have strengthened the rights of women, issues of gender-based pay discrimination are still all too common and often ignored or overlooked,” she said. “By collaborating on this brief, we not only were able to help bring attention to these important issues and fight for a favorable outcome, but we were also able to develop and refine our written advocacy skills that will be used as an essential tool throughout the rest of our legal careers.”
Olusa said he has used this opportunity to reflect on his experience as a law student thus far, gaining a deeper appreciation for advocacy work.
“To be quite frank, many of the skills you develop in law school are exhausted on mundane memorization and attempting to defeat an artificial bell curve. Despite this, I can truly and sincerely state that contributing to this case has easily become one of the most essential experiences of my legal career," he said. "Writing and editing the brief for this case made me truly understand why lawyers are called 'advocates.' It felt as if all the knowledge and skills I obtained during law school were finally being applied to something truly meaningful. I am beyond overjoyed; this experience helped remind me of why I decided to study law."