Ever wonder how lawyers and law professionals keep their cool, or lack thereof, while discussing polarizing issues such as abortion, gay rights, or police brutality? I was very curious about this precise topic while I was walking around the halls of the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting, deciding which session to attend. I scrolled through the handy-dandy AALS app and found a session called Law and Religion: a conversation about religious responses to same-sex marriage. Bingo! I took one of the last empty seats in the nearly-full room and prepared for a theological and legislative showdown.

I was slightly disappointed when, to my dismay, moderator Michael Helfand carefully navigated the contentious issue at hand.

A few different viewpoints were represented by the speakers of the panel. New York Times reporter Erik Eckholm spoke about his experiences covering the gay marriage beat. Professor Katherine Franke of Columbia University spoke about discrimination in the LGBT community, particularly surrounding the issues of civil unions and legal marriage. Russell Reno, editor of the conservative religious journal First Things, discussed the role of morality in modern law. Kevin Walsh delivered his views about the changing social view of gay marriage in America, as well as a few (in my opinion, slightly problematic) remarks surrounding the “abandonment” of the definition of marriage. Robin F. Wilson spoke eloquently about same-sex marriage, religious liberty, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (aka RFRA).

Despite the opposing views of a few members on the panel, each speaker presented his or her viewpoint with respect and extremely high levels of academic integrity. (Many of the speakers are published, if not celebrated, legal studies authors.)

I was originally drawn to this topic because I thought same-sex marriage was an extremely polarizing subject. Don’t get me wrong, it is definitely polarizing–especially if you have been unlucky enough to bring up the subject at a family dinner where someone starts citing the Bible and bringing up the argument that “homosexuality is a sin.” But the reality at the AALS meeting was that the topic was not discussed at a dinner table in between servings of mashed potatoes and burnt brussel sprouts. As my seat-neighbor David Pimentel mentioned, everyone presented their views respectfully while still acknowledging that their perspectives were different from that of their peers. It was at this moment that I wished law school students could have sat in on the discussion, because it was truly a master class on professionalism.

I took a very different approach later in the day when I scanned the AALS schedule looking for a second session to attend. Instead of seeking out controversy, I looked for a course where I hoped to learn something new. My wish was granted when I sat in on the Civil Rights session. Gilda Daniels, Professor Lynda Dodd, Angela Mae Kupenda, Audrey McFarlane, and Kindaka Sanders all appeared on the panel. My non-law school educated mind zero-ed in on three main topics that were discussed: affordable housing, the use of technology to facilitate equality, and police brutality. Audrey McFarlane spoke about how inequality leads to housing challenges, especially in urban environments such as New York City. She brought up the “poor door” debacle in New York back in April of 2015. Essentially, the story goes that there was a luxury apartment building that set aside a few units for lower-income tenants, as stipulated by the city’s Inclusionary Housing Program. However, the owner of the building ordered two different entrances to be made; one large and elegant entrance for the luxury tenants, and one smaller, simpler entrance for the lower income tenants. Even after controversy arose regarding the disparity between the two entrances, 88,000 people applied for the 55 available units.

McFarlane noted that even now, in the 21st century, people are opting to “take a little discrimination” if it means that they can move to a safer and more affordable neighborhood. McFarlane questioned the practice of inclusionary housing, and urged her fellow colleagues to think about new and innovative ways to make safe housing available to families living in public housing. Would that mean implementing a lottery system wherein a family could have the chance to move from the Bronx to the suburbs? Is integration the goal, or is access? Will creating more community centers improve a neighborhood?

Gilda Daniels and Professor Lynda Dodd brought up ideas surrounding social equality and technology. Specifically, Professor Dodd mentioned Campaign Zero, which is an online initiative that seeks to end police violence through comprehensive policy reform. Their infographics are easily digestible, and all of their information is carefully researched by four leading Black Lives Matter Activists; Samuel Sinyangwe, Brittany Packnett, DeRay McKesson, and Johnetta Elzie. With the rise of social media, activists in rural areas are not limited to convening only in local areas, where it might be difficult to organize people in a physical space. The internet allows for the organization of like-minded individuals no matter where they are physically located.

When I spoke with Angela Mae Kupenda, she also mentioned the importance of staying connected to civil rights groups through the use of technology. “I think social media plays a major role in reinvigorating a movement, because it gets the information out, so that people know what’s going on,” Professor Kupenda said,

It also inspires students. If you see what’s happening at other schools or other cities, you can immediately know what’s going on. That can inspire you to do something the same way, or to do something different.

Mixing tech-talk with good old-fashioned books, Professor Kupenda also offered up a suggested reading list for professors or students who are interested in civil rights history. Her picks include “Reproducing Racism” by Daria Roithmayr and “Black Like Me” by John Howard Griffin, an account of how a white reporter went “undercover” as a black man in the Deep South of the 1950s.

Kindaka Sanders spoke about police brutality, and the concept of self-policing a local community. When he spoke about the Black Panther Party openly and legally carrying guns until the law was changed to prevent open-carry opportunities, I thought of the recent open-carry announcement in Texas. (Namely, that as of January 1, 2015, any person who has a license for a firearm can legally open carry in the state of Texas, even if they are not a resident of the state).

Many Texans support the new open-carry law, but what would happen if a group of young black men (ala the Black Panther Party) decided to re-appropriate the law and follow Texas police officers while showcasing their right to open-carry?

This session on Civil Rights was food for thought–in fact, it was an entire banquet for me. So often, college graduates (or people who have not sat in a classroom for a long time) can get sucked into their own bubble of issues. Living in the tri-state area, I sometimes take it for granted that many people around me support same-sex marriage and gay rights. Sitting in on the Law and Religion session reminded me that although this country has made progress in the realm of gay rights, we still have a long way to go to bring LGBT issues into mainstream conversations and legislation. Similarly, after listening to the speakers of the Civil Rights session, I have realized that it is imperative that lawyers and policy makers address and rectify the systemic racism that is still very much alive today.

Through attending sessions at the AALS Annual Meeting and interacting with other people involved in law academia, I was able to step outside of my bubble and think of issues that affected Americans on a macro scale, not just on my own teeny tiny micro level. I would urge anyone interested in the AALS to definitely check out their website (found here) and consider attending next year’s meeting in San Francisco.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law, Religion, and Civil Rights: Adventure at the AALS Annual Meeting appeared first on Law Street.

Law school students and professors all over the country are marching back to their universities as they begin their first official semester of 2016. Some may be dragging their feet, though, as they think about the events of the previous year. Law school enrollment continued to fall, and some law professionals have seen pay cuts as a result of the aftermath of the recession. Thankfully, a new year brings new and innovative possibilities in the form of the Association of American Law Schools. Their Annual Meeting this year addressed important issues such as lowering law school drop-out rates and finding jobs for students post-graduation. Here’s what I learned when I attended the 110^th Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting in New York City as a correspondent for Law Street Media:

The event is the largest worldwide gathering of law faculty and staff, featuring over 800 speakers and attendees from 179 different law schools. I sat in on the session for first-time attendees to get an overview of the AALS conference, and to speak with other people who were also experiencing the Annual Meeting for the first time. The “greeter” panel consisted of Executive Director Judith Areen, Bradley A. Areheart, current AALS president Blake D. Morant, incoming AALS president Kellye Y. Testy, and Michael E. Waterstone. The panel spoke frankly about the high cost of attendance for the conference, and announced that they will continue to extend deep discounts for new teachers. Areheart stressed the importance of networking opportunities during the conference and encouraged the audience of law professionals to make time to meet new people and swap stories about their experiences in their particular fields of study.

Morant warmly greeted all newcomers in the audience and similarly encouraged everyone to take ownership of their experience at the AALS conference, no matter if they were a first year teacher or seasoned professor. After the panel, I asked what led him to create this year’s AALS Annual Meeting theme, “From Challenge to Innovation: Legal Education in 2016.” He noted that law professionals as well as law schools are still feeling the negative effects of the most recent recession, in terms of a downturn in the number of available jobs.

“One of the things I’ve noticed is that law schools are re-tooling,” Morant explained:

Law schools have put in innovations such as externships along with practicums. All of these things show synergy between what they learn in the classroom and what happens in the real world, and that has been hugely innovative. So as I came up with the theme, I said, oh my goodness, everything has changed! But I think law schools are innovating, and adapting to that challenge.

Morant also reasoned that practical experience teaches students professionalism, a hugely important skill that law school graduates must learn.

Associate Professor of Law, Virginia Harper Ho from the University of Kansas School of Law echoed Morant’s sentiments, and predicts that the effects of the financial crisis will cause further structural shifts in the legal profession as well as academia. She shares a desire to prepare her students as well as she possibly can for the “real world,” which may in fact include more access to externships and practical experiences.

As the “first-timers” meeting continued, there was much excitement surrounding a session called the Arc of Career. When I spoke with Professor Jennifer Rosa from Michigan State University College of Law, she said that her attendance at this year’s AALS conference was largely due to the relevant programming, including sessions surrounding the arc of a law professor’s career.

Many law professionals in the meeting room of AALS expressed that after they overcame the initial fear of starting a career in law or education, they wanted more guidance or feedback once they hit their mid-career stride. Specifically, Rosa voiced her interest in becoming established in academia as a writer now that she has cultivated her pedagogical voice.

Rosa has taught Street Law for the past 11 years. The course includes community outreach, “where professors train law students to go out into the high schools and teach high school students aspects of the law that would apply to them.” The course has evolved to include the use of podcasts as a teaching tool. Rosa has also created videos for an organization called LegalED. Video content on LegalED is modeled after the popular TED Talk format. The organization seeks to use the power of the internet for legal education. Professors all over the United States are putting the 2016 AALS theme into practice, using technology to respond to unique challenges in their classrooms that could not have even been foreseen five or six years ago.

AALS gives people like Professor Rosa and Professor Harper Ho a rare chance to connect with other law professionals from schools all around the country. Over the course of several days, they attended specific sessions that were organized according to different hot topics in law. After the initial meeting, I went on to attend two sessions: one entitled “Law and Religion,” which discussed religious responses to same-sex marriage, and one called “Civil Rights,” which examined civil rights movements in the 21^st century. Stay tuned for recaps and responses from these two sessions.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Welcome to the 110th AALS Annual Meeting: What’s Going on in the Law School World? appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s take a moment to reflect, shall we? But PLEASE, let’s not discuss Trump’s most recent gaffe or ISIS’s newest target. Throw away those gosh darn Thanksgiving leftovers you keep “saving” but will find covered in mold at the back of the fridge next week, and actually give thanks for the non-edible items in your life.

When’s the last time you showed gratitude for your education, job, or physical abilities? And when’s the last time you complained about one of the above? Thought so.

So, keep this next story in mind for the next time you unload the complaint wagon on a friend or co-worker.

I first came across the story of Haben Girma after she was featured on Amy Poehler’s Smart Girls Facebook page. (Yes, it’s the organization founded by that Amy Poehler). Haben Girma is Harvard Law’s first deaf-blind graduate. Now, Girma works as a public service lawyer, fighting for the rights of people with disabilities.

The White House has recognized Girma as a Champion of Change, and in July of 2015, she delivered introductory remarks for the 25^th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She spoke directly with President Obama, using a digital device that displays Braille characters.

Girma’s Etrirean refugee parents, tenacious spirit, and access to opportunities afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have all contributed to her success. She is no stranger to adversity, having grown up facing access barriers as a deaf-blind person. What was the best way for other students and friends to communicate with her? How could she form personal relationships? How the heck could she have access to her school’s cafeteria menu?

She addresses all of these points in her celebrated Ted Talk from TedxBaltimore 2014 (which has garnered over 180,000 views on Youtube).

So, what does a Harvard educated public service lawyer and bonafide hero do for fun? Salsa dance and surf, of course. Girma was taught swing and salsa by a blind dancer, and was a member of the Harvard Ballroom Dance Team. She also enjoys tandem surfing, as seen in this video.

Whether you’re thankful for a job, family member, or just grateful that it’s not snowing yet, take some inspiration from Haben Girma and reflect on the positive things in your life.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Complaints Here: Deaf-Blind Champ Haben Girma Graduates from Harvard Law appeared first on Law Street.

Oscar Pistorius, the South African Olympian and double-amputee known as “Blade Runner,” was released from prison last week. In October of 2014 he was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, and sentenced to five years in prison. Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide as opposed to manslaughter, a crime which would have merited more jail time.

Pause for a reminder: Pistorius claimed that the day he “accidentally” killed Steenkamp, he mistook her for an intruder. Pistorius killed Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. Steenkamp was set to give a speech on domestic abuse the day she was killed.

Needless to say, many South Africans (including Steenkamp’s family) do not believe that the athlete mistakenly shot his model/reality star girlfriend. They believe the killing was intentional, and that Pistorius got caught up in his own lies.

Elements of Pistorius’ testimony did not add up with forensic analysts’ findings. According to BBC:

A forensic analyst contradicted Mr Pistorius’ claim that he was wearing his artificial legs when he tried to break open the toilet door with a cricket bat after realising Ms Steenkamp was inside. Police Colonel Johannes Vermeulen said the angle and location of the marks on the door suggested Mr Pistorius was on his stumps.

If Pistorius lied about not having his prosthetics on, what else did he lie about? Why did he shoot his firearm multiple times if he thought the noises he heard were just an intruder?

Thankfully, Pistorius will not have access to firearms while on house arrest in (ahem) his uncle’s tricked-out mansion. He is also required to attend regular counseling sessions, so long as he is “doing time”–which, as of now, means four more years.

To the American mind, it seems crazy that a man found guilty of being involved in the death of his girlfriend could possibly receive such a lenient sentence. However, under South African law, “an offender sentenced to five years or less in jail can be released to correctional supervision after serving one-sixth of the term—in Pistorius’ case 10 months.” Indeed, Pistorius has served a bit more than one-sixth of his sentence, so it should not come as a shock that he has been released from Kgosi Mampuru II jail in Pretoria, where he was being held.

What should come as a shock is that Pistorius was held in the hospital section of the jail, rather than in the cells with the other 7,000 inmates who are not celebrities or well-known athletes. As past Law Street articles have stated, it is problematic when a celebrity uses his or her status to acquire special treatment while incarcerated. Yes, it is true that Pistorius would have needed additional medical support as an imprisoned double-amputee in jail. However, he received preferential treatment as a celebrity athlete, which unjustly separated him from the rest of the prison community.

Additionally, Pistorius was released a full day earlier than what was announced by the State Department, in order to avoid a media firestorm. Surely no other prisoner would have been afforded the luxury of a 24-hour head-start after their release was already announced. It’s time for South Africa to re-assess its court procedures when dealing with high-profile suspects and prisoners. (Heck, it should also consider overturning the 1969 law that abolished trial by jury.) But hey, some countries have to walk before they can run like a convicted Olympian.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oscar Pistorius Leaves Prison to Chill at Uncle’s House in South Africa appeared first on Law Street.

How can Twitter become more profitable? Politics. Two weeks ago, Twitter announced that all Tweeters will be able to press a button within a tweet to make political contributions.

This service will undoubtedly make it easier for the general public to monetarily back candidates they support. Considering that Twitter users see political news more regularly than Facebook users, Twitter is probably the best social platform to start experimenting with e-donations.

Jenna Golden of Twitter echoes these sentiments:

When people have conversations about politics, they have them on Twitter. It’s what voters learn and share in these conversations that routinely motivates political action.

People can send money to campaigns using cashtags. Basically, instead of using a hashtag in a Twitter post (i.e. #berniesanders) they can click on an existing cashtag associated with a candidate’s verified account (i.e. $berniesanders) to donate funds.

The catch is that the whole process goes through a financial service called Square. So, even though Twitter is trying to streamline the whole money-transfer process, a prospective donor will be re-directed from Twitter to Square’s website.

Hmm…I wonder why Twitter partnered with this particular third-party site rather than building their own internal system or choosing another site, such as Venmo.com? Could it be because Square co-founder, Jack Dorsey, is also the interim CEO of Twitter? Curious. (Insert side-eye here).

What will be the pitfalls of this new type of digital alchemy? Will turning one click into a $10 donation for Hillary Clinton really make a difference? Additionally, with all the possibilities of cyber security breaches, will private banking information be safe in the hands of Square?

Even if donors are hesitant to put their money where their mouse is, presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle are supporting the new Twitter cashtag venture. Nine candidates are embracing the new technology–are they ready to embrace other alternative forms of payment?

Next month, could supporters follow the recent Dance Deals trend and do the “hokey pokey” for Hillary in order to donate funds? (Maybe we should put in a call to Elana Langer after her next scheduled #DanceDeal at Brookfield Place in NYC).

If donors succeed in finding and actually using campaign cashtags, it’s a smart move for politicians to utilize Twitter’s crowd-funding capabilities. Square only charges a 1.9 percent processing fee for each donation, and Twitter does not charge a penny for processing. Twitter does, however, charge campaigns to promote or “boost” tweets that explicitly ask users to donate.

In a perfect world, the political campaign gets a ton of online donations, Twitter profits off of the promoted tweets, and Square gets its small cut of all donations. If this plan succeeds, it could drastically increase Twitter’s profitability, and its reputation in the political arena.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Pushes Political Campaigns into the Digital Age appeared first on Law Street.

If your pro-wrestling-obsessed Uncle Jimmy seems a little down in the dumps this week, he might have heard the news that the legendary 1980s wrestler Jimmy “Superfly” Snuka was arrested for a murder he allegedly committed in 1983.

For everyone who was not yet born or still in Pampers during the early eighties, basically Jimmy Snuka was a professional wrestling icon not unlike Hulk Hogan. At the height of his fame, his girlfriend (well, mistress technically) Nancy Argentino mysteriously died in a Pennsylvania motel room that the couple was staying in. No one was officially charged with her murder, but Snuka was ordered to pay $500,000 to the Argentino family in a wrongful death case. Fun fact: Snuka never paid up because he claimed he was broke.

Why is a case that’s over 30 years old being re-opened now? Two major developments. Number one: Snuka penned an autobiography released in 2012 wherein he discusses the night Argentino died. His accounts do not add up with police records, and authorities were able to point out several inconsistencies. Number two: the Pennsylvania news outlet The Morning Call published a piece on the 30^th anniversary of the death of Nancy Argentino that further implored authorities to re-visit the cold case in the interest of justice for the deceased’s family. It is the oldest cold case to result in charges in the history of Lehigh County.

Here’s where things take an even sadder/weirder turn. Snuka was charged with third degree murder—which, as any first year law student can tell you, means a killing with malice. Yet, after Snuka was sent to the county jail, he was able to leave after posting $100,000 bail. Did Lehigh County allow a murderer to essentially pay his way out of jail? Not so, says Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin. As it turns out, 72-year-old Jimmy Snuka has stomach cancer…and very expensive medical bills.

I do not want to burden the taxpayers of Lehigh County with medical expenses, which would be extremely high and would have to be borne by them if he remained in Lehigh County Jail,” Martin said.

Quite logical…yet extremely unsatisfying to a certain extent. An exorbitant amount of effort and judicial action went into prosecuting a decades-old crime. The perpetrator has been officially identified. Now the family of Nancy Argentino must live with the fact that the man guilty of the heinous crime that changed their lives never went to jail. Perhaps the small bit of justice is that now the guilty man must live with the knowledge that all the world knows, unequivocally, that he is guilty.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Not So Fly Guy: Pro Wrestler Arrested for Murder appeared first on Law Street.

Iconic restaurant chain Whataburger just announced it will not allow the open carrying of guns on its properties. The company has locations in 10 states, including Texas, which recently passed legislation stating that licensed Texans can openly tote their handguns in a hip or shoulder holster.

Whataburger President and CEO Preston Atkinson wrote an open letter than can be viewed on the company’s website. Atkinson writes that the company must think about how the open carry policy affects its employees and customers. He stated:

From a business standpoint…we have to think about how open carry impacts our 34,000+ employees and millions of customers.

The open-carry law will be put into effect starting January 1, 2016, but Texas Restaurant Association CEO Richie Jackson said he was not surprised by Whataburger’s early announcement. Under the new law, “gun rights do not trump property rights.”

Other Texas area restaurants are expected to follow Whataburger’s lead.

Residents of the Lone Star state will likely react both positively and negatively to Whataburger’s announcement. Naysayers like Open Carry Texas founder C.J. Grisham will probably boycott the restaurant (let’s hope he can resist the siren call of the famous Patty Melt) while supporters like the members of Moms Demand Action will undoubtedly express their gratitude and continue to visit Whataburger locations.

But what if Whataburger had remained silent on this issue—or, heaven forbid, openly praised the open-carry bill?

For starters, it probably would have lost a lot of business from customers who brought their families or sports teams onto Whataburger properties. (Nothing says “good sportsmanship” like grabbing a seat next to a man with a gun-holster after the big game).

Secondly, this would have meant a huge change in the training of employees. How would you feel if you had to constantly survey customers and be on the lookout regarding who was visibly armed?

Before Whataburger released its open letter, moms like “Moms Demand Action” spokeswoman Stephanie Lundy reflected on what would happen to their teenaged sons and daughters who worked the late shift at fast-food restaurants. Since when does the job description of a minimum-wage occupation include assessing if someone was going to use a firearm to rob their place of business?

To quote Mary Jones, a woman who was featured in the Associated Press coverage of the Whataburger situation: we are not in the Wild, Wild West. Leave your firearms at home if you want to eat some French fries.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iconic Restaurant Chain Will Not Follow Texas Open Carry Law appeared first on Law Street.

Lucky enough to have a job? Unlucky enough to have a long or expensive commute? You’re not alone, according to a new Citi study.

The average American spends $10 per day in commuting fees, clocking about 45 minutes a day in commuting time. Want to take a stab at which city boasts the highest daily roundtrip costs? Surprisingly, it’s Los Angeles—commuters shell out an average of $16 per day. New York comes in second place at $14, with Chicago and San Francisco tying for third place at $11 a day.

While people in L.A. spend the most amount of green commuting, New Yorkers spend the most amount of time getting to and from work. How long, exactly? An average of 73 minutes per day. (I myself am a tri-state area commuter who spends about double that amount of time commuting per day, and I feel the need to stress the term “average.” For every person whose commute is a breezy 20 minutes, you can find at least one poor soul who logs three to four hours of commuting time per day.

So why do people subject themselves to these crazy commutes? For some people, money is a driving factor (no pun intended). If they can take home larger salaries, they can justify spending more time and money getting to work.

Other people might actually not mind commuting. (These people have obviously never been in Port Authority during rush hour or experienced genuine hell traffic at the Lincoln Tunnel).

About 72 percent of the women involved in the study said that commuting was the only “me” time they had during the day. Husbands are not within earshot of their wives, and mothers are away from their kids. There is time to read, catch up on favorite podcasts, or swipe on some Maybelline while en route to work. Although, as a friendly PSA to my fellow ladies and other humans who put on makeup while on the train, keep it simple, quick, and scent-free…you’re in a public space, after all.

For some people, however, commuting negatively affects their everyday attitudes pretty significantly. They report feelings of anxiety and genuine dissatisfaction with their lives.

People who use public transportation reported higher levels of anxiety compared to people who commuted privately (i.e. drove their own cars).

The most recent study showed that 49 percent of those polled who do not ride their bikes to work would do so if their town/city offered a bike-share program, especially in Los Angeles and Chicago. New York City has had its Citi-sponsored bike-sharing initiative running since 2013, with plans to launch 1,000 newer & slimmer Olympic-style bikes this month.

Commuting might stink both literally and metaphorically at times, but what’s the alternative? Not everyone can work from home. Only the strong can commute. We schlep, we drive, we work, we ride NJ Transit. Then we wake up and do it all over again.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are You Schlepping to Work in This City With the Longest Commute? appeared first on Law Street.

Two sisters from Overton, Texas are receiving an outpouring of support after local police shut down their roadside lemonade stand. (Ex-squeeze me?)

Zoey and Andria Green, 7 and 8 years old respectively, were trying to raise money to buy their dad a Father’s Day present. They harnessed their entrepreneurial energies and decided to sell lemonade and kettle corn to drivers and passers-by until they earned enough money to take their dad to a nearby water park for his special day.

Overton Police Chief Clyde Carter told the girls they could not continue operating their stand. He said they needed to pay $150 for a peddler’s permit, noting that they were also in violation of certain health codes since they prepared the kettle corn themselves.

(Just a reminder: these were kids…in a residential area in Eastern Texas…selling snacks).

Aren’t there bigger issues that a Police Chief should be focusing on? Couldn’t the fees or permit be waived at the discretion of the commanding officer? I guess Police Chief Carter never saw this video from 2010, wherein a county official in Oregon apologized to a little girl for the closure of her lemonade stand.

The Green sisters have since received tons of support from their community, and have discovered how to use one of America’s most sacred tools: the loophole. As long as the girls “give away” their snacks and ask for donations, they are not breaking any laws–and do not require any permits.

Hundreds of East Texans have pledged their support and plan to visit the sisters’ stand this Saturday. The girls were given (free) water park tickets to both Six Flags and Splash Kingdom after their story broke.

Mom Sandi Green Evans told reporters that additional donations collected on Saturday will be given to the Deana Rinehart and Felicia Roach Overton High School Sports Scholarship Fund.

Any police officers in the area won’t be doling out tickets–they’ll be directing traffic.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kids’ Lemonade Stand Shut Down by Texas Police For a Ridiculous Reason appeared first on Law Street.

What is the hottest “it” accessory? Coach wristlets? Plastic choker necklaces? Michael Kors watches? Nope—fitness trackers are the newest arm-candy craze. The wearable devices have slid into mainstream usage. Bottom line—they’re not just for health nuts anymore.

Around 2.7 million fitness trackers were shipped worldwide during the first quarter of 2014, about 50 percent of which were Fitbit devices. Fitbit is the brand name of sorts for wearable trackers in the same way the name Kleenex is synonymous with tissues.

Fitbit has been riding out its successful wave; this month the company even filed to offer public stock options. However, that wave is about to crash. One of Fitbit’s competitors, a company called Jawbone, is suing Fitbit for “plundering” confidential information. (Argh, matey, there be pirates afoot.)

How did Fitbit allegedly steal information? By employing Jawbone employees who were, ahem, not exactly loyal to their anatomically named former employer.

Mutiny on the cyber seas?

Jawbone’s lawsuit has two parts. Firstly, it wants financial compensation from Fitbit. Secondly, it wants the court’s assistance to prevent former employees from using any information they may have taken/gained while at Jawbone.

While Jawbone and Fitbit are fighting in open water, Apple is keeping watch on dry land…literally. There is a very real possibility that Fitbit’s profits will be significantly less than anticipated due to the fitness capabilities of the Apple Watch. Factor brand loyalty into the mix, and Apple becomes Jawbone and Fitbit’s most formidable competitor.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jawbone vs. Fitbit: Mutiny on the Cyber Seas appeared first on Law Street.

Sofia Vergara’s ex fiancé, Nick Loeb, is suing her for the rights to their frozen embryos.

Before the actress and Loeb separated they went through the process of medically creating and freezing embryos with the intention of using a surrogate to bring one or more of those embryos to term.

During this process, the couple decided to split up and a biological child was never brought into the world.

Vergara has since moved on and is now engaged to actor Joe Manganiello. Loeb, on the other hand, has publicly lobbied to regain ownership of the frozen embryos that were created while he was in a relationship with Vergara. He intends on using a surrogate to bring the embryo to term; however, Vergara does not want the embryo to result in a child. According to Loeb:

We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent. The form did not specify–as California law requires–what would happen if we separated. I am asking to have it voided.”

Loeb, creator of the Crunchy Condiment Company, has used his ex-fiance’s notoriety to catapult his own case into the pop-culture stratosphere. His main argument for why he should be allowed the rights to the embryos he made with his ex? Women have the power to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects, so he should be allowed to bring his unborn child into the world and raise it as he sees fit.*

(*Probably a flawed argument, considering most natural pregnancies are not preceded by legally binding contracts.)

But what happens if a couple warring over embryonic rights does not have any star power?

The topic of frozen embryo ownership isn’t just a celebrity issue. In the United States alone, 600,000 eggs are frozen every year. If freezing eggs is such a common practice, shouldn’t contracts regarding legal rights to frozen eggs be pretty standard? In America…not exactly.

Consider our British brothers and sisters who have fairly concrete laws regarding the process of freezing eggs:

In the U.K. for a couple to go through such treatment, they’d have to sign all the consent forms. If the couple split up, if one party withdraws the consent, the other party can’t use it at all.

In other words, if Vergara and Loeb were having this squabble in England, chances are that Loeb’s request to void the contracts would not be granted. Perhaps the realm of embryonic rights would become less of a gray area if the United States were to adopt the U.K.’s policy wherein consent must unequivocally come from both parties.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post True Hollywood Story: Embryo Edition appeared first on Law Street.

What’s the worst thing you’ve ever accidentally left in a bathroom? A cell phone? Purse? Credit card? How about a Glock pistol?

If you were lucky enough to find the missing item, who returned it to you? A co-worker? Boss? Janitor? Perhaps an eight-year-old child?

Here’s the situation: you are a member of House Speaker John Boehner’s police detail. You are protecting your charge when suddenly, nature calls. You answer this call in a lavatory at the Capitol. As you walk back to your post, you do not notice that you left your gun inside the restroom, in plain sight.

The firearm, a loaded Glock, was found by a child who was visiting the Capitol with his parents.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

You might think to yourself, “How could I have done that!? The gun did not even have a safety on it. I hope no one else ever does what I just did. Come to think of it, I wonder how many times something like this has happened before. I’ve heard of instances where housekeepers or janitors have found unattended guns, but never one where a kid found one. Oh dear. Well, at least Capitol Police are not required to disclose any details about this incident.”

^^But of course, these are all just hypothetical thoughts, and no one knows the true identity of the individual who left his gun in the Capitol restroom. The only thing the public knows about the absent-minded individual is that he got suspended for six days without pay, and could potentially be fired.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This is Probably the Worst Way to Forget Your Glock appeared first on Law Street.

The future is now…on hold until further notice. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed drone regulations that will make Amazon’s future drone service (dubbed “Amazon Prime Air”) nearly impossible to implement. Unfamiliar with the online retailer’s plan to send packages via unmanned drone? Take at look at this video with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos featured on CBS This Morning.

The concept of drone ethics has become a hot-button issue both in the United States and abroad. Most recently, the off-Broadway play “Grounded,” starring Anne Hathaway, has brought issues regarding remote drone pilots into the spotlight.

Drone regulation remains a highly divisive issue. There is no question that drones have the potential to be used as weapons of war  as well as tools for efficient aid delivery.

Let’s highlight some clear benefits to delivery by drone in the United States. If small aircraft are being used, that means having fewer delivery trucks on the road, less fuel being consumed, and faster delivery times. Companies like Amazon and Google are urging the FAA to revise its irksome rules that impede the use of drone technology rather than accommodate it.

For example, under FAA rules all drone operators must fly aircraft “only within their line of sight.” While this rule might make sense for a recreational drone user, it does not necessarily make sense for a commercial drone that could be programmed to follow a GPS path to an exact location.

Speaking of recreational drone users–if you or anyone you know owns a drone, you could get into big trouble if you do not abide by the FAA’s policies regarding small, unarmed aircraft systems.

Seems like a lot of rules for a device that could be bought online for under a hundred bucks. In fact, on most sites there are no age restrictions to purchase drones. Are kids or teenagers going to know that flying drones above 400 feet is illegal? Are they even going to abide by the FAA’s rules even if they do know? Hopefully they don’t try to fly drones in harsh weather. Or fly too close to seagulls. Or interfere with local air traffic. (Suddenly smart phones don’t seem so dangerous anymore.)

The FAA has created conservative rules regarding drone use, and it is going to take its time evaluating comments from the public and private sectors while it revises those rules. Roughly speaking, it will take 18 to 24 months for the FAA to review everything and speak with Amazon regarding proposed policy changes.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Forward to Amazon Deliveries Via Drone? FAA Says Not So Fast appeared first on Law Street.

Save money, live better…don’t work at Walmart?

Last week Walmart closed five stores in four states and only gave employees five hours notice. That’s right—five hours. Why the sudden closure? The retailer cited plumbing issues that could take up to six months to complete.

Courtesy of Giphy.

That’s right, Blanche Devereaux—something doesn’t add up here. Plumbing work, even extensive plumbing work, does not take six months to complete. Additionally, what are the odds that the plumbing systems of five geographically unrelated stores would all need repairs at the same time? The situation was ridiculous enough to warrant a proper lampooning from Larry Wilmore on Tuesday night’s episode of The Nightly Show. [Note: despite claiming problems with plumbing, none of the Walmart stores that were abruptly closed have filed for plumbing permits yet].

Walmart workers say that the company probably closed at least one store in retaliation against workers protesting for better pay and working conditions. [So that’s why they can justify shutting down stores and losing revenue from five stores for half a year]. Walmart does not want its workers to unionize. In fact, it never has.

Back in 2000 a group of Walmart butchers voted to unionize. After the butchers formed their union, Walmart stopped cutting meat in stores and only sold pre-packaged meat. This year, it appears Walmart has evolved its bullying tactics by closing entire stores rather than just closing down smaller sections.

A rather wacky theory has emerged online as to why Walmart has closed some of its stores, and it has nothing to do with plumbing or unions. Some Internet users believe that the military will be using the closed stores as shelters once Martial Law is declared.

Courtesy of Giphy.

All theories and conjectures aside, the reality is that more than 2,200 Walmart workers were laid off and given two months of severance pay. Will they be forgotten like the Walmart butchers, or will they find ways to stand up to their bully?

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Walmart Stores Shut Down After Giving Workers Only Five Hours Notice appeared first on Law Street.

The 2015 Tribeca Film Festival kicks off its 14^th year of programming this week. Since its inception, the Festival has enabled directors and filmmakers from all over the world to showcase their independent movies and new projects.

Some of those projects include interactive elements. The Tribeca Film Festival’s Storyscapes program features five immersive projects vying for the 2015 Storyscapes Award. Two of the projects are particularly concerned with one overarching theme—access to personal data.

Is privacy a luxury in the age of the Internet? Corporations such as Google and Facebook often track consumers’ online behavior without their express consent. The data is collected and used to create specifically targeted advertisements under the guise of “personalization.” Businesses aggregate millions of dollars worth of information for free; they never compensate consumers for the info they provide.

Here’s a very mild example: Teen girl posts online status about coffee. Teen girl gets Facebook ads exclusively for Starbucks. Teen girl looks at ad, is reminded of the company, and gets her afternoon Frappucino. (Starbucks +1, Teen girl -$3.95)

The average Joe and/or suburban coffee addict can’t sue big companies for using their data because, usually, people sign contracts that they never read. (Case in point: when’s the last time you updated Flash? Did you read all the licensing copy before you clicked “I Agree” and continued? Didn’t think so.) In the fine print of many software or program updates, in extremely bombastic and verbose legalese, is a section that states that you allow the program to use any and all of your information free of charge if you sign on the dotted line.

Let’s take a look at the two Tribeca Storyscapes projects that address the commodification of personal information.

DO NOT TRACK

“Do Not Track” is a personalized documentary program that discusses the dangers of having an increasingly personalized online experience. If users are only shown ads that are relevant to them, will that make them intolerant of other advertising…or even other people?

Consumers have become accustomed to serving up their information online—it’s become a nasty little modern habit rather than a cultural annoyance. People have embraced the companies that use data mining to sell products…where’s the outrage? Perhaps you’ll find it at the live installation.

Check out dates/times to visit the installation here.

KAREN

The considerably less political (but just as provocative) project “Karen,” has been brought to Tribeca by Blast Theory, developed in partnership with National Theatre Wales. Karen is a life coach app who asks the user questions to determine his psychological profile. Blast Theory’s website claims that Karen “starts to identify things she shouldn’t know.” In trying to create a thrilling and personal experience, the creators of Karen looked into different methods of information aggregation.

We became fascinated with big data, and particularly how governments and large companies such as Facebook are collecting data on us secretly and using it without our consent.

Karen’s evaluation of your personality may reveal unsettling details about your cyber security. Want to hear Karen for yourself? Schedule your appointment here. (Bonus points if you recognize the performer who plays Karen, actress Claire Cage, from the British TV series Coronation Street.)

Wonder how much public information you can find about yourself online? Try conducting a search in a brand new window. Open Google Chrome, click File, and then select New Incognito Window. If you use this option, your new search won’t be tainted by your past search history. Happy Googling!

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tribeca Film Festival Storyscapes Examine Big Data & Confidentiality appeared first on Law Street.

Spring is in the air. While the daffodils and tulips are emerging, for some, so are the baby bumps. New parents have many responsibilities and choices to make once their little bundles of joy are out in the world. Working mothers in the United States must make one especially weighty decision: to go on maternity leave, or to go straight back to work? The choice is not as cut-and-dry as some may think—both financial and emotional factors must be considered. A family must also consider whether or not they will pay for the services of a babysitter or nanny, care for the child themselves, or enlist family and friends to help care for the child. But are policies in the U.S. to this effect changing?

In America, the concept of maternity leave is quite common, but what about paternity leave? New mothers are afforded “bonding” time, but what about fathers? As it turns out, new parent–both moms and dads–are allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave after the birth or adoption of a child, according to The Family and Medical Leave Act.

There are many caveats to this act, however, and not all employees may be qualified to receive its benefits. Even if an employee qualifies, he or she may not choose to take off from work if it could cause a financial hardship, given that the leave is unpaid. There may be a solution here–perhaps the United States should adopt the policies of other countries that allow parents to go on paid parental leave. Norway allows parents to take a leave of 36 weeks and receive 100 percent of their wages; Australia allows each parent 12 months of leave, of which 18 weeks are paid.

While the U.S. may need to update its parental leave policies, one major American city has recently revised its childcare options. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced the city’s implementation plan for free, full-day, universal pre-kindergarten.

Mayor Bill de Blasio. Image courtesy of Kevin Case via Flickr

Many New Yorkers have speculated as to the need of such a program, but it seems the numbers speak for themselves. In the first three weeks of enrollment, 51,000 New York City families signed up for the mayor’s pre-K program. More families will undoubtedly sign up before the enrollment deadline for the program on April 24, 2015.

The funds needed for the program were raised by tax increases. But what if the funds had been put toward implementing paid parental leave instead of universal pre-K? Going forward, what if people were given a choice between paid parental leave OR universal pre-K? Allowing New Yorkers to reject or accept alternate parental systems may be an innovative way to test out options that could be afforded to the rest of the country.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paid Parental Leave: Are There Alternatives for U.S. Parents? appeared first on Law Street.

Pharrell isn’t happy. Last month the hit song “Blurred Lines,” created by Pharrell Williams and singer Robin Thicke, was officially found to be in violation of copyright law. A California judge ruled that the track was too similar to Marvin Gaye’s well-known song, “Got to Give It Up.” Williams and Thicke were ordered to pay $7.4 million to Gaye’s family. Was the judge’s ruling too harsh? Not harsh enough? Have a listen for yourself.

Marvin Gaye’s sister, Zeola Gaye, was also featured on the song “Got to Give It Up.” Amid controversy surrounding the lawsuit, Zeola Gaye clarified that she did not receive any of the $7.4 million reward. In fact, she never desired or requested any of the money from the case; compensation was always meant to go solely to Marvin Gaye’s heirs.

You may have heard “Blurred Lines” played ad nauseum on radio stations during the summer of 2013. You’ve probably also heard about (or seen) the song’s controversial music video featuring a few scantily clad ladies. I’d wager you probably haven’t heard the opening arguments of the lawyer who defended Williams and Thicke in court. Howard King began his case by telling the jury that creativity could not be owned:

We’re going to show you what you already know: that no one owns a genre or a style or a groove. To be inspired by Marvin Gaye is an honorable thing.

Although the judge’s final ruling ultimately disregarded King’s premise, Williams has echoed King’s sentiments regarding the ownership of ideas. The Grammy winner claims that the outcome of his case has implications for the music industry and creativity at large:

The verdict handicaps any creator out there who is making something that might be inspired by something else.

Harsh judicial penalties may cause confusion as to what materials artists can and can not use, leaving them in creative limbo.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Artists who have creative discrepancies do not always head straight to the courtroom—soulful crooner Sam Smith recently settled a lawsuit with Tom Petty out of court. Musicians and artists who side with Williams fear that the litigation blitz surrounding “Blurred Lines” will start a wave of similar cases wherein artists are unduly penalized for emulating their idols.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pharrell Williams Fears For the Future of Creativity appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is running out of lethal injection drugs. European pharmacies have refused to sell any more of their pentobarbital or other such supplies to America after they received information that the drugs were being used to kill inmates. Most of the E.U. has abandoned the use of capital punishment; the U.S. is the only Western country that still carries out executions.

As followers of the American penal system and/or fans of Gone Girl know, the rules regarding capital punishment vary from state to state. At present, 32 states in the U.S. enforce the death penalty, including Utah and Texas.

Lawmakers are seeking “back ups” to lethal injection. Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill on Monday that allows death row prisoners to be killed by firing squad when execution by lethal injection is not available.

Read More: Lethal Injection Crisis: How States Are Solving the Problem

What are the procedures for a firing squad execution, you may ask? Officers volunteer to be part of a three-person shooting team. The anonymous trio shoots at a target over the inmate’s heart. One of the three guns that is used is loaded with a blank round, so nobody knows exactly which officer killed the inmate.

Read More: It’s Time to Bring Back the Firing Squad

If you are part of the 55 percent of Americans who support the death penalty for convicted murderers, you might agree with Fordham Law Professor Deborah Denno’s evaluation of death by firing squad:

It’s the only method we have in this country for which people are trained to kill. It appears the death is the quickest.

Other methods of capital punishment have also been discussed. The electric chair, death by hanging, and gas chambers were ruled out. Judge Alex Kozinski expressed his views on the use of another controversial killing method:

The guillotine is probably best, but seems inconsistent with our national ethos.

If you are an American who is not in favor of the death penalty, you might support exploring the other alternative—eliminating capital punishment altogether. Organizations such as Amnesty International are looking to get rid of the death penalty in America and educate people about the politics of its capital punishment system.

The change of policy in Utah has brought national attention to issues of justice and morality within the U.S. prison system. Will this issue incite a push for reform? Perhaps it is necessary to re-evaluate our country’s “national ethos,” to borrow a phrase from Judge Kozinski.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Death by Firing Squad Now Legal in Utah appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been two-and-a-half years since Hurricane Sandy last dominated headlines, but recently the storm has been pulled back into the media. From the 60 Minutes special “The Storm After the Storm,” to this funny yet poignant spot on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and an article in last week’s edition of The New York Times have all described problems along the road to recovery.

Some residents of the New York/New Jersey area who received the brunt of the hurricane’s wrath are still waiting to receive full compensation for their damaged homes and businesses. Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper created a satirical news package that brought to light the struggles of one Staten Island neighborhood. The spot revealed that victims of Hurricane Sandy are still waiting to receive money to rebuild their destroyed houses. One woman explained that she was frustrated because organizations such as “Build It Back” lose paperwork and do not do enough to help affected communities.

The coverage on “60 Minutes” attributed the delayed or missing compensation to intentionally doctored paperwork, claiming there is evidence that insurance and engineering companies often falsified reports. In one example, a company claimed that the damage caused by the storm was long-term damage that existed before the hurricane rolled into town, even though paperwork from a previous visit to the home determined the damage was due to the storm. The resident maintained that the damage was indeed caused by the events of Hurricane Sandy, producing evidence of the paperwork from the original visit.

How is FEMA reacting to all this hoopla? Well, the organization will be reviewing every flood insurance claim filed by homeowners affected by Hurricane Sandy. FEMA’s message was announced by Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, along with Senators Robert Menendez and Cory Booker, Tweeter Extraordinaire, of New Jersey. (Seriously though, check out Senator Booker’s on-point Twitter account here).

Along with reviewing every flood insurance claim, FEMA will also be launching its own internal inquiry. While all of these reviews and inquiries sound great in theory, there is still not a concrete plan of attack as to when (or how) Sandy victims will be compensated. Steve Mostyn, the lead lawyer representing New York homeowners, remained cautiously optimistic:

We are happy that FEMA now agrees to reopen all Sandy claims. However, that process has not been worked out and the details of that process will determine if it is real or just window dressing.

Hurricane Sandy caused 117 deaths and more than $60 billion worth of damage, second only to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. If America does not improve its process for addressing national disasters, what will happen to homeowners seeking compensation in the future? How many years will they have to wait to rebuild? Is the United States ill-equipped to handle the aftermath of the next deadly tornado in Nebraska, or future large-scale fire in California? Hurricane Sandy might have been an East Coast problem, but fair–and timely–post-storm compensation is a national issue.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hurricane Sandy Recovery Drags on For Devastated Communities appeared first on Law Street.