The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Sarah Spitalnick v. King & Spalding, LLP
Overview
Plaintiff challenged a law firm’s diversity internship program, alleging that it requires that applicants be of an “ethnically or culturally diverse background or be a member of the LGBT community.”
Details
On February 25, 2025, the court ruled in favor of King & Spalding and granted their motion to dismiss. The court found that Plaintiff failed to show she was harmed by the eligibility requirements because she had not shown any intent to apply. Without proof of direct harm from the alleged discriminatory policy, the court determined that her case was no different from someone who simply disagreed with the policy.
On June 22, 2025, Plaintiff appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the case. However, on November 13, 2025, Plaintiff stipulated dismissal of all claims.
Court
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Status
Filed June 26, 2025 | Decided
Details about the stipulated dismissal are not available.
Topic
Targeted programsLitigation History