U.S. Department of Education – March 2019 – Present.
Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC – June 2015 - March 2019.
Cooter, Mangold, Deckelbaum & Karas, LLP – October 1996 – September 2014.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority – July 1993 - September 1996.
(Source)
Before joining the Department of Education, Karen Karas was a leading legal advocate for transgender rights in the debate over religious exemptions for certain universities. Transgender students have brought an increased predatory focus on universities and colleges claiming religious-based exemptions from Title IX compliance. In 2018, Karas wrote:
The Human Rights Campaign’s Report raised public awareness of this important issue. It is also worth noting, however, that there are several hundred religiously affiliated universities and colleges in the United States which have not sought an assurance of exemption with respect to the Title IX rights of transgender students (although, it is possible that some may be claiming exemption and just have not yet sought an assurance). Many religiously-affiliated institutions have taken concrete actions to support their transgender students. In fact, Campus Pride, the organization serving LGBTQ students, has noted that “[r]ecent studies by Campus Pride reveal . . . that more and more Catholic and Protestant universities are actively seeking to improve the campus climate for their LGBT students.” On the other hand, some religiously-affiliated institutions, while supportive of their LGBTQ communities in many respects, do not go as far as some students would like or believe the schools are legally obligated to go.”
In fact, Karen Karas’ legal writings were cited in the legal attacks against the first Trump administration on this topic, with the left-wing non-profit Public Justice citing Karas’ work in a comment to Secretary DeVos on Title IX regulations.
In November 2024, Karen Karas represented the Department of Education in a case that reviewed an appeal by three career colleges against the final approval of a class action settlement between the United States Department of Education and a class of over 500,000 federal student loan borrowers. The panel held that the schools had Article III standing based on their alleged reputational harm, but lacked standing to challenge the final approval of the settlement. The schools argued that they had no opportunity to give feedback on the list of schools eligible for loan cancellation and that the settlement was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
SOURCE: Theresa Sweet v. Cardona, 121 F.4th 32, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28007 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit November 5, 2024, Filed)
(Source)
