Texas’ revamped voter ID law is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday. The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, issued an injunction, saying it violates the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. Gonzales Ramos also blocked another Texas voter ID law, which passed in 2011 and took effect in 2013. A number of subsequent legal challenges have largely blocked that law.

The protracted legal battle over Texas and its voter ID laws–among the toughest in the country–represents a larger voter fraud debate, playing out at both at the state and federal levels. Critics of voter ID laws say Republican-controlled states are deliberately stymying minorities from voting, because they are more likely to vote Democratic. Proponents of voter ID laws say voter fraud is rampant and must be kept in check with tougher voting standards.

Gonzales Ramos said Texas’ updated law, which was set to take effect in January, “remains discriminatory because it imposes burdens disproportionately on blacks and Latinos.” She added that the revisions made in the updated law, known as Senate Bill 5, do not “fully relieve minorities of the burden of discriminatory featured” of the 2011 law.

“The court thus issues injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and the recurrence of illegal behavior,” she wrote in the ruling.

Gonzales Ramos tossed the 2011 law, Senate Bill 14, in 2014. A circuit court affirmed the decision, but asked Ramos and the District Court for the Southern District of Texas to reexamine its discriminatory purpose. In April, Gonzales Ramos once again ruled that the law intentionally discriminated against minorities.

The original law required Texas voters to show one of seven forms of government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport. Critics contend minorities are less likely to have any of the seven ID options, and thus would be disproportionately barred from voting. The revamped law offered more options for identification, including utility bills or bank statements. Still, Gonzales Ramos found the law to be too restrictive.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has vigorously fought the legal challenges to the voter ID laws over the past few years. In a statement, he called Wednesday’s ruling “outrageous,” and vowed to appeal the decision. He also cited the Justice Department’s support of the law. Paxton added: “Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy.”

Voting rights activists, civil rights groups, and a number of Democratic politicians cheered the decision. U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX), issued a statement saying, “Republican state leaders’ transparent efforts to make it harder and less likely that some Texans will vote are disgraceful.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Blocks Texas Voter ID Laws…Again appeared first on Law Street.

The owner of an Atlanta gym wants the world to know that police aren’t welcome at his business.

Recently, Jim Chambers posted a sign on the front door of the EAV Barbell Club explaining the gym’s rules. The sign is clearly visible from the street and reads, “Do whatever the hell you want, correctly, except crossfit cultism. No f—–g cops.”

According to Chambers, although the sign went up a couple weeks ago, he has enforced this policy since the gym opened. He also does not give memberships to active members of the military.

Former law enforcement and military members, however, are welcome to join.

In an interview with Reuters, Chambers explained that most of his clients are minorities and/or members of the LGBT community. Many of them would be uncomfortable working out alongside law enforcement because police officers had harassed them in the past.

“We know statistically that those people are at risk around police in America,” Chambers said. “I had members who joined because of the policy: they saw it on the door and thought, ‘Oh, that’s cool,’ and joined.”

He has since removed the vulgar sign but plans to put up another without the expletives.

The Atlanta Police Department has not released an official statement about the policy. However, a representative told local news station WXIA, “Were we to respond to an emergency there, this sign would not stop us from lawfully doing our job.”

Chambers doesn’t mind. “If they have a warrant, they can go anywhere they want, but we’re not breaking the law,” he said.

He also noted that, as someone who describes himself as “somewhere between an eco-anarchist and a Marxist-Leninist,” he would not be likely to call the police in the first place.

WXIA reached out to a team of lawyers about the legality of the policy. They agreed that federal anti-discrimination laws do not protect law enforcement as a separate group. The courts could decide if the policy is discriminatory, but for now, it remains legal.

Since the story broke on Tuesday, mixed reactions have been pouring in on social media. The gym’s Facebook page currently has a 1.4 rating and over 2,000 one-star reviews.

Atlanta Gym Owner Puts Up Sign, ‘No F—ing Cops’ – Tells Reporters: No Veterans Either https://t.co/KUGJQNMsCt
Wow
Why would anyone go there?

— Truckster1 (@truckster1) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym owner you're doing amazing sweetie https://t.co/sLUzClmBkc

— reggie (@1942bs) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym bans Cops from joining.

It’s their right. And it’s our right not to join & to protest outside the gym. https://t.co/l7BmVeYzV8

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 9, 2017

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Atlanta Gym Bans Police and Active Military Members appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief stating that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect against employment discrimination based on sexuality.

The brief was in response to Donald Zarda’s lawsuit against his employer, a skydiving company called Altitude Express. Zarda believed that the company fired him in 2010 after he told a female customer that he was gay. According to trial documents, he did this so that the customer would not be uncomfortable that he was strapped so tightly to her.

Zarda died in 2014 in a skydiving accident. Two executors of his estate continued the lawsuit on his behalf. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is currently hearing the case.

The New York district court originally dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Zarda could not file under Title VII because the act does not cover sexual orientation. The Justice Department’s brief encouraged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the lower court’s ruling.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination. It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts,” the brief says.

It goes on to add that since Congress never specified anything to do with sexual orientation in the act, the courts cannot act independently to change it.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The legislation does not specify the exact meaning of “sex.” However, “in common ordinary usage, the word means only ‘biologically male or female,'” the brief continues.

But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April that Title VII does protect sexuality. “It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation,'” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT and HIV Project, said in a statement that he was relieved that the courts could interpret the Civil Rights Act, rather than Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Trump Administration.

“We are confident that the courts will side with equality and the people,” he concluded.

The Justice Department filed the brief the same day that President Donald Trump tweeted his ban on transgender service people in the military.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ: Civil Rights Act Does Not Apply to LGBT Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

Police in India have arrested at least 15 people for celebrating too vividly after Pakistan beat India in a cricket match that took place in London on Sunday. The two neighboring countries have traditionally had a hostile and competitive relationship, and that also extends to the sports world. The men were arrested on suspicion of sedition, a charge that could carry with it ineligibility for government jobs or even life in prison.

Most arrests were made in the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India, after a neighbor called the police complaining about cricket fans who were shouting anti-India slogans and lighting firecrackers. Police seized 15 men aged 19 to 35 on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Burhanpur district.

“They expressed hatred toward India and friendship toward Pakistan. They are charged for sedition and criminal conspiracy,” said Ramasray Yadav, a police officer who took part in the arrests. However, he also said the men shouted slogans expressing their love for India while in detention.

15 Muslim men arrested in India for celebrating Pakistan’s victory over India in the Champions Trophy cricket final https://t.co/8xLdAgh5UT pic.twitter.com/e0EGmcZz9J

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 21, 2017

The neighbor who called in the complaint that led to the arrest of the 15 men is Hindu, while all the suspects are Muslim. And India is not free from Islamophobia. Muslims are a minority there, and many say they are experiencing an increase in violence and hostility, targeted because of their religion. Leaders of the ruling party BJP have tried to paint Muslims as violent and dangerous and accused them of scheming to rid India of Hindus.

Recently there have been several violent attacks on Muslims after people have accused them of killing, selling, and eating cows. Cows are holy in India, so slaughtering them is illegal. What Human Rights Watch calls self-appointed “cow protectors” have made it their task to crack down on Muslims suspected of stealing cows.

Since May 2015, at least 10 Muslims, including a 12-year-old boy, have been killed because of “cow protector”-related violence. On April 21, a mob of people brutally attacked a nomad family, including a nine-year-old girl and an elderly man. After their assault they set the family’s home on fire.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is mainly Muslim. Tensions between Pakistan and India turned so bad a few years ago that the annual cricket competitions had to be cancelled. Scheduled peace talks have been repeatedly abandoned for the past three years, and there seems to be no end to the conflict over the disputed area of Kashmir.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indian Police Arrest at Least 15 for Celebrating Pakistan’s Cricket Victory appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s ban on “gay propaganda” violates international law, Europe’s top human rights court ruled on Tuesday. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that the ban was discriminatory and violated freedom of expression.

“Above all, by adopting such laws the Court found that the authorities had reinforced stigma and prejudice and encouraged homophobia, which was incompatible with the values — of equality, pluralism and tolerance — of a democratic society,” the ECHR wrote.

Life in Russia has long been unwelcoming–and at times, perilous–for LGBTQ people. According to Russian news outlet Novaya Gazeta, more than 100 gay men in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe, have been detained in Chechan prisons. Some have been tortured and killed due to their sexual orientations. In an interview with VICE News, Ayub Kataev, a Chechan prison warden and head of the ministry of internal affairs, not only denied the reports of the imprisonment and abuse of gay men, but denied the existence of gay people altogether.

“My officers would not even want to touch such people, if they exist, let alone beating or torturing them,” Kataev told VICE News.

Since 2003, regional governments in Russia have passed variations of the “gay propaganda” ban, and in 2013, the ban was adopted nationwide. Three Russian LGBTQ rights activists, Nikolay Bayev, Aleksey Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev, protested the ban between 2009 and 2012 at a school in Ryazan, a children’s library in Arkhangelsk, and an administrative building in St. Petersburg–some of the cities that had instituted a ban at the time. The activists were found guilty of administrative offenses and fined. After the activists unsuccessfully appealed the convictions to Russia’s Constitutional Court, the ECHR agreed to hear their case.

According to the ECHR, Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences was amended in 2013 with the ban that prohibited “the promoting of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors, … creating a distorted image of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.”

The ECHR held that the Russian government had failed to demonstrate how LGBT expression would negatively impact so-called “traditional families,” and minors, who the government claimed needed to be protected from non-heterosexual orientations. To the contrary, the ECHR asserted that the ban “embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority.”

The decision was handed down by a seven judge chamber comprised of judges from seven different European countries. The chamber’s judge from Russia, Dmitry Dedov, was the lone dissenter, claiming that “a positive image of homosexuality adversely affects the development of children and puts them at risk of sexual violence.”

The ECHR ordered Russia to pay a total of 43,000 euros to the three activists who brought the lawsuit. However, whether that ruling will be followed has yet to be seen as Russia approved a law in 2015 allowing the country to ignore ECHR rulings if they conflict with the Russian constitution.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post European Court Rules Russia’s “Gay Propaganda” Ban Violates International Law appeared first on Law Street.

JPMorgan Chase, one of the largest banks in the world, has been accused of discriminating against fathers when it comes to parental leave. The ACLU has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a worker named Derek Rotondo. Rotondo claims that the bank discriminates on the basis of sex when it comes to paid parental leave, by guaranteeing women 16 weeks, but men only two.

Rotondo, a father of two, has worked for JPMorgan Chase for seven years. The current parental leave policy at the financial institution guarantees 16 weeks for the “primary” caregiver and two weeks for the “secondary” caregiver. When Rotondo’s youngest child was born, he decided to apply for parental leave granted to a “primary” caregiver, because he intended on playing that role with his son. But because he is the child’s father and not a mother, he was told that the company makes the presumption that the “primary” caretake is the mother, and he has to prove that he will be acting as a primary caretaker.

Because his wife, who is a teacher, would also be home, he didn’t meet the definition and wasn’t given the 16 weeks of leave. Rontondo claims that it was only men who would be forced to prove that they’re the primary caretaker, and in doing so, the bank is violating federal civil rights law. Essentially, he claims that if the roles were reversed, he would have received the leave, no questions asked. As Rontondo wrote in a piece posted on the ACLU website:

J.P. Morgan’s parental leave policy is outdated and discriminates against fathers who want a meaningful amount of time off to be at home with their kids–just like mothers who work for the company. The policy also discriminates against both moms and dads by enforcing two related stereotypes: that raising children is women’s work and that only men should return to work immediately after their children are born. This doesn’t even begin to address how same-sex and adoptive parents fit into the equation. What would a two-dad family do under J.P. Morgan’s policy, for example?

If the EEOC finds that there’s merit to Rontondo’s complaint, it could open the door for a federal lawsuit filed against the banking giant. In a nation that seriously lags behind when it comes to parental leave as a whole, this could be a good thing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post JPMorgan Chase Accused of Discriminating Against Dads appeared first on Law Street.

An 8-year-old girl from Omaha, Nebraska and her soccer team were disqualified from the championship round of a tournament this weekend after officials told her team that “she looks like a boy.”

Milagros “Mili” Hernandez was mistakenly identified as a boy on a Nebraska soccer tournament registration form. Officials then ignored the reality that another form listed her as a girl and that she was on an all-girls team, according to The Washington Post.

Her father, Gerardo Hernandez, then attempted to show tournament officials Mili’s insurance card to prove she was a girl, according to ESPN. The Nebraska soccer officials ignored the pleas and cited Hernandez’s short hair as evidence.

So, despite winning two of their three games on Saturday, which guaranteed them a chance to earn a trophy, the entire Azzurri Achurros team was disqualified just hours before their 2 p.m. kick off, according to The Washington Post. 

Mili burst into tears when she heard the decision.

‘I was mad; I never had that problem before. She’s been playing so long in different tournaments,’ her father told The Washington Post. ‘I don’t want no problems with nobody, but that wasn’t the right way to treat people. Why they want to tell my girl looks like a boy?’

Mili plays on the local 11-year-old team after she dominated the league for her age group. The talented youngster dreams of extending her soccer career into middle and high school before advancing to college and, hopefully, the professional leagues, according to her brother.

She has worn her hair short since she was young, her father said, and as she’s grown older she has decided to keep it that way. That spurred USA soccer star Abby Wambach, who also has short hair, to offer support to Mili in the aftermath.

Dear Mili Hernandez, you are amazing in every way. Thank you for teaching us how to be brave and shining a light on something so hurtful. If you don't know, she is my new hero. Her team was disqualified from a tourney cause they thought she was a boy because of a clerical error that wasn't handled properly. Let's meet soon sister.

A post shared by Mary Wambach (@abbywambach) on Jun 5, 2017 at 8:59pm PDT

While the Nebraska soccer tournament has concluded, organizers told the Hernandez family that they could appeal the decision with the Nebraska State Soccer Association, according to local NBC affiliate WOWT News.

But even if she can’t play in future tournaments like this one, another soccer star is here to help out. Mia Hamm, one of the most notable female American soccer players, also offered support.

Hey Mili, we would love to host you at one of our camps @TeamFirstSA . Be you!

— Mia Hamm (@MiaHamm) June 5, 2017

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Eight-Year-Old Girl Who “Looks Like a Boy” Disqualified from Nebraska Soccer Tournament appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, reports came out stating that over a hundred gay men had recently gone missing in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe. The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta claimed that gay men had been “illegally detained, beaten, tortured with electric shocks” by officials. They were then allegedly locked up in secret prisons, including one former military facility. Now several media outlets have referred to these prisons as de facto concentration camps, after claims that inhabitants are regularly tortured and killed.

Though the exact situation is hard to glean, and proof would be hard to obtain, what is clear is that Chechen officials have a problem with gay people. The official response to the accusations is baffling–a spokesperson for the republic’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov said that the reports were “absolute lies and disinformation,” not because he condemned the atrocity of the reports, but because he claimed there are no gay people in Chechnya. “You cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist in the republic,” he told the Interfax news agency.

He also claimed that had there been “such people” in Chechnya, their families and relatives would already have sent them “somewhere from which there is no returning.” Chechnya is a strictly conservative region and the majority of occupants are Sunni Muslims. Kadyrov has been criticized previously for forcing women to wear hijabs in public places, encouraging polygamy, and starting two conflicts.

Reports Say That Gay Men Are Being Held in Concentration Camps in Chechnya https://t.co/E5orv8yzKV pic.twitter.com/l1Qh5josHX

— The Mary Sue (@TheMarySue) April 10, 2017

Human Rights Watch says the group has received information from reliable sources, including sources “on the ground,” that corroborates the information about detentions and torture. In a statement on its website, the group’s Russia Program Director Tanya Lokshina says that the number of sources and consistency of the stories leave her with no doubt that they are true. However, she wrote, she couldn’t reveal any details about the sources’ stories, for fear of repercussion against them.

People reacted strongly to the news and many questioned why this subject isn’t being given more attention.

Kadyrov denying gay concentration camps in Chechnya by saying ‘those people don’t exist in the republic’ is terrifying. Talk about this. pic.twitter.com/zs9yyxsqNo

— Meg V. Jones (@ItsMegNotMegan) April 11, 2017

What’s happening in #Chechnya today is literally what the Nazis did. Rounding up, torturing, and killing gay people. It’s abhorrent

— Ferenc G. Koszorus (@fgkoszorus) April 11, 2017

I’m calling on @nikkihaley to speak up against the reported #LGBTQ concentration camps in Chechnya. RT to join me. https://t.co/NM05ag67fA

— Sarah Kate Ellis (@sarahkateellis) April 11, 2017

A spokesman for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said that the government would look into the matter, but didn’t provide any details about what would be done. He also suggested that any individuals that have suffered abuses should file a complaint and go to court. But that would be basically impossible to do in Chechnya. Lokshina from Human Rights Watch says,

These days, very few people in Chechnya dare speak to human rights monitors or journalists even anonymously because the climate of fear is overwhelming and people have been largely intimidated into silence. Filing an official complaint against local security officials is extremely dangerous, as retaliation by local authorities is practically inevitable.

One of the harrowing accounts explains how a man was beaten with a hose and tortured with electricity to confess that he was gay. He said he was locked in a room with 30 others and that security officials told him the crackdown orders came from the republic’s leaders. Gay people are also sometimes shunned and killed by their own families in Chechnya.

Gay men have reportedly started fleeing the region and deleting their social media accounts. For now the outlook is grim, but at least an LGBT group in St. Petersburg, where the gay community is relatively strong, has set up an anonymous hotline that gay Chechens can call if they need help.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reports Claim that Chechnya Has Created Gay Concentration Camps appeared first on Law Street.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas just ruled that Texas’ voter ID law intentionally discriminates against minority voters and violates the federal Voting Rights Act. The 2011 law has been thrown out as unconstitutional, and there’s the chance that Texas’ voting laws could once again be put under the purview of the federal government.

The law was passed by the Texas legislature in 2011 but didn’t go into effect until 2013. It required that all voters show some sort of government-issued photo ID before casting a vote, such as a driver’s license or passport. Since its inception, it has been controversial, sparking a drawn out legal battle. Critics point out that black and Hispanic voters are less likely to have those forms of identification. Judge Ramos ruled that the law was enacted with the intent to discriminate against minority voters.

The suit was brought by a number of plaintiffs, including the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives, La Union del Pueblo Entero and League of United Latin American Citizens, several individual voters, and Dallas County.

If you’re feeling a bit of Texas voter ID law deja vu, you’re not wrong. This is actually the second time that Ramos has ruled on this law. She ruled on it in 2014 as well, and then the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, sent it back to her. That court “found that Judge Ramos had relied too heavily on Texas’ history of discriminatory voting measures and other evidence it labeled ‘infirm’ and asked her to reweigh the question of discriminatory intent.” She once again found that the law is discriminatory.

The state of Texas is expected to appeal her decision again, but this could set Texas up for federal monitoring of its voting laws. The Voting Rights Act used to require that certain states–Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia–that had a history of passing discriminatory voting laws had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the provision that required such “preclearance” but if a state is found to have passed a law that is intentionally discriminatory, it could be subject to that oversight once again.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Rules that Texas’ Voter ID Law is Discriminatory appeared first on Law Street.

When Dyne Suh, a law student who lives in Riverside, California, booked a stay at an Airbnb for a skiing vacation with her fiance, she asked the host whether it would be okay to bring two more guests. The host answered that it would be no problem and said they would only have to pay a little bit extra. Suh thought everything was fine but then in February, as the four friends were driving up to Big Bear, California for their trip, she texted the host again to confirm the arrangement and to ask how she wanted them to pay and how much. Suh was shocked when she got a response.

“And she says, ‘Absolutely not… You must be high if you think that that would be OK in the busiest weekend in Big Bear.’ Then she said, ‘No, we’re done,’ and she canceled the trip,” Suh said, recounting the conversation. Suh then told the host she would complain to the company and the host answered, “Go ahead. I wouldn’t rent to u if u were the last person on earth.” Then she added, “One word says it all. Asian.”

“I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners,” the host texted. “It’s why we have Trump.” https://t.co/tMKVeThnPr

— HuffPostWomen (@HuffPostWomen) April 10, 2017

As if that wasn’t enough, the host wrote, “And I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners. It’s why we have Trump.” Suh posted screenshots of the conversation on Facebook. A video of Suh telling her story while stranded in the snowstorm quickly went viral.

Coincidentally, Suh is a law student who focuses on race relations. She says she is a U.S. citizen and has lived in the country since she was three years old, but argues that where she’s from shouldn’t matter. “This is home to me,” she said in an interview with NBC4 Los Angeles. “No matter how long I’ve lived here, for me to be treated this way just because of my race?”

Christopher Nulty, a spokesperson for Airbnb, called the host’s behavior “abhorrent and unacceptable” in a statement to NBC4. He added, “We have worked to provide the guest with our full support and in line with our non-discrimination policy, this host has been permanently removed from the Airbnb platform.”

Airbnb has had some problems dealing with racism and discrimination among its hosts, but in September the rental site announced new guidelines to help identify and fight racial bias. The changes came after many people started using the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack to share their experience being discriminated against. Now it seems like there is still some work to do.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airbnb Bans Host Who Canceled a Reservation Because of a Guest’s Race appeared first on Law Street.

According to a calculation by the Associated Press, the disputed “bathroom bill”–HB2–would cost North Carolina about $3.76 billion in lost business over twelve years. Over the past year, several companies have left the state. For example PayPal, which pulled out of North Carolina last year, would have contributed an estimated $2.66 billion to the local economy.

Artists like Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Starr have cancelled concerts in North Carolina and the NCAA is also avoiding the state–it is about to announce the locations of various championships through 2022 and has said that North Carolina will not be included as long as the controversial law is in place. This could result in losses of hundreds of millions more.

‘Bathroom bill’ to cost North Carolina $3.76B, AP analysis finds https://t.co/3vyxKpSHJT #HB2 #LGBTQ pic.twitter.com/tIKfCz4DNm

— NBC Out (@NBCOUT) March 27, 2017

The bathroom bill prohibits transgender people from using the public bathroom that corresponds with the gender they identify with. It used the argument that allowing transgender women–who were born male–into the women’s bathroom, would result in an increase in sexual assaults. As there is absolutely no evidence for this, and male predators don’t typically identify as women or care whether they are allowed in the women’s bathroom or not before attacking, that argument understandably caused a lot of criticism and outrage.

Former Governor Pat McCrory, who was very supportive of the bill, failed to win re-election in November and revealed in a recent interview that he has had trouble finding a new job. “People are reluctant to hire me, because, ‘oh my gosh, he’s a bigot’–which is the last thing I am,” he said.

-Gov signs anti-trans bathroom bill
-State loses $600M, reputation hurt
-Gov voted out, can’t get job https://t.co/ByEk5EWbTs #ncpol #hb2 pic.twitter.com/yPpGVodCGq

— Alex Kotch (@alexkotch) March 13, 2017

The AP put together its analysis through interviews and public records, but also said that the numbers probably are an underestimation. The data only includes businesses that the AP could confirm were relocating or canceling their business in the state because of the bill. That means there could be more that the AP couldn’t confirm and therefore didn’t include. There were also likely cancelled endeavors from other companies that the AP had no way to measure.

“Companies are moving to other places because they don’t face an issue that they face here,” said Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, which is based in North Carolina. He said he has talked to many business leaders who had spoken out about their choice to relocate, but that others are probably moving quietly. McCrory’s statement after signing the bill into law that it wouldn’t affect the state’s position as “one of the top states to do business in the country” seems to have been proven wrong.

But supporters of the bill have not admitted to any defeat; rather they are saying that the costs are worth it, as long as it keeps sexual predators out of women’s bathrooms, which is the main argument in favor of the bill. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest accused the media of creating a false image of the economic impact of the bill. “The effect is minimal to the state. Our economy is doing well. Don’t be fooled by the media,” he said when addressing Texas legislators who are considering adopting a similar law.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looks Like the Bathroom Bill Will Cost North Carolina Billions appeared first on Law Street.

Private employers in European Union member-states can now legally ban employees from wearing head scarves or other religious garb, the bloc’s highest court ruled on Tuesday. The European Court of Justice’s ruling comes at a time of creeping anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment across Europe, most notably in France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Head scarves are not the only targeted religious ornaments; the ruling could affect Sikh men who wear turbans or Jews who wear yarmulkes, for instance. Applying only to the workplace, the ban is binding for EU member-states, as all ECJ rulings are. Some European politicians who are bracing for heated elections later this year welcomed the ruling. Francois Fillon, the scandal-plagued presidential candidate in France, called the ruling an “immense relief,” and said it would be “a factor in cohesion and social peace.”

France’s far-right candidate, Marine Le Pen, has built her campaign around anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-Muslim, policies. She is expected to advance to the second round of voting, which will take place on May 7. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany party is seeking to supplant Chancellor Angela Merkel in an election in September, though the party has recently dipped in the polls. The party’s Berlin leader, Georg Pazderski, applauded the ECJ’s ruling, saying it “sends out the right signal, especially for Germany.”

The ruling was based on two separate cases brought to the court by France and Belgium. In the first case, Samira Achbita, who worked for a security company in Belgium, was fired when she refused to remove her head scarf while at work. The ECJ ruled that Achbita had not been discriminated against because her workplace’s ban of religious attire applied to all religions, not just Islam.

“An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination,” the court said, adding that the rule “treats all employees to the undertaking in the same way, notably by requiring them, generally and without any differentiation, to dress neutrally.”

In the second case, Asthma Bougnaoui was fired after a customer of her France-based IT consultancy firm complained that her head scarf was “embarrassing.” The ECJ ruled that she had, unlike Achbita, been discriminated against, because a customer complaint does not justify the firing of an employee. But that does not mean an employer cannot have a policy that employees are forbidden to wear religious attire in the workplace. The ECJ ruling allows for such a policy, which many religious and civil rights groups worry could lead to discrimination, specifically against Muslim women.

“It will lead to Muslim women being discriminated in the workplace, but also Jewish men who wear kippas, Sikh men who wear turbans, people who wear crosses,” said Maryam H’madoun of the Open Society Justice Initiative. “It affects all of them, but disproportionately Muslim women.”   

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post European Court of Justice Rules That Employers Can Ban Religious Attire appeared first on Law Street.

Mississippi Representative Tom Weathersby proposed a bill last week that would prohibit sagging pants in the state. Anyone who commits the offense would be subject to fines up to $100 and psychological and social counseling.

According to Mississippi Today, the GOP lawmaker filed House Bill 1353 in response to a constituent’s encounter with a group of young men who “wore their pants too low” and became belligerent after they were asked to pull their pants up.

“Personally, I like to see people dressed when they’re in public and I like to see people with their pants up,” Weathersby told Mississippi Today.

“Anti-sagging” provisions have gained some traction over the past couple years. As the Huffington Post points out, communities like Opa-Locka, Florida and Wildwood, New Jersey have adopted bans on sagging pants, and two high school students in Tennessee, both black, were jailed for “indecent exposure” because of their low-riding clothing.

Hinds County, Mississippi made an effort to outlaw sagging by proposing a $10 fine on those who violated the ordinance. In that 2012 case, local government officials equated sagging pants with the Jackson area’s youths’ inability to get jobs.

The Mississippi chapter of the ACLU pushed back, warning that the ordinance may–as ACLU representative Bear Atwood told ABC News–“end up targeting black neighborhoods and, for kids who have done nothing other than wear their pants too low, brings them into contact with the police unnecessarily.” The ordinance was eventually voted down.

Mississippi state’s most recent anti-sagging bill invites a multitude of questions. How low do pants have to be to be considered “indecent and vulgar”? What will psychological and social counseling actually do to prevent this low-hanging atrocity from persisting?

Perhaps, a more prudent question is why do legislatures and local municipalities think it’s okay to legitimize respectability politics in black communities?

To start to define “respectability politics,” we can look to the statement that the Mississippi chapter of the ACLU shared in its response to the Hinds County proposed ordinance:

We all want to see our young people grow into productive, engaged citizens, but this is not the way. Saggy pants bans will have long lasting harm in our communities. Such bans will divert precious resources from law enforcement. Let’s spend those resources on education, after school activities or new text books. Rather than open doors for youth, saggy pants bans will close doors of opportunity.

The Mississippi ACLU statement begins an argument that helps to pinpoint the nucleus of what is wrong with the respectability politics argument: Why should forcing black communities to adapt to standards of “respectability” be a focus for legislation when the culture of poverty is created and exacerbated by discriminatory policies that result in the lack of resources afforded to these communities?

Politics of respectability seek to blame the condition of black lives in America solely on black people–as if their agency is not limited by institutions and structures that are the result of years of discriminatory policies. This presents a flawed reality in which equality for African-American can be achieved if only young black men pulled up their pants and if young black women dressed better.

It also puts the onus on marginalized people to aspire to standards set in the interest of maintaining hierarchy in order to gain some semblance of equality and respect. Respectability politics defines racism as something black Americans will just have to overcome. As Mychal Denzel Smith writes in his book “Invisible Man Got the Whole World Watching,” “It’s only when [black people] live up to the stereotypes that we limit our opportunities.”

Mississippi is a state where African-Americans, who make up almost 40 percent of the state’s population, still suffer from the residual effects of the state’s “Black Codes” and brutal implementation of Jim Crow. It is a state whose flag waves proudly while containing a tribute to the Confederate flag and has school districts that, even 62 years after Brown v. Board of Education, only recently “officially” desegregated. It is also home to one of the nation’s highest poverty rates and worst public school systems.

In HB1353, we see Mississippi’s desire to focus its energy not on actions that will make any attempt to alleviate its many problems, but on bills that criminalize certain choices and create a measurement of a human being’s deservedness of fair and equal treatment based on how many inches one’s pants falls below one’s butt.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Mississippi’s Proposed Sagging Ban is Legitimizing Respectability Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Walmart has agreed to pay $7.5 million in order to settle a lawsuit that claims the company discriminated against thousands of gay employees.

The lawsuit alleged that Walmart denied spousal health insurance benefits to same-sex employees between 2011 and 2013. The company said the settlement will benefit “no more than a few thousand current and former Walmart associates.”

Jacqueline A. Cote, who has worked for the retail giant since 1999 in Maine and Massachusetts, filed the lawsuit last year after she was repeatedly denied coverage for her  ailing wife. In 2012, Cote’s wife, Diana Smithson, was diagnosed with cancer. Since Walmart denied her health insurance benefits, the couple racked up more than $150,000 in debt. Smithson passed away in March.

The lawsuit alleged that Walmart violated the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law.

As per the settlement, Walmart denies all allegations brought forth in the lawsuit, but chose to settle, “in the interest of resolving this dispute between the parties without the significant expense, delay and inconvenience of further litigation.”

Cote, who was pleased by the lawsuit’s outcome, said in a statement, “It’s a relief to bring this chapter of my life to a close.”

Walmart began offering health benefits for same-sex couples in 2014 after the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act; prior to that Walmart only offered benefits to employees’ domestic partners in states where it was required to do so by law.

In an effort to increase inclusion, the company recently announced that it will be extending its health insurance to cover transgender employees this year. On Monday, the company received a perfect 100 score from Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, the group’s annual ranking of companies’ workplace protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees.

According to Reuters, Sally Welborn, a senior vice president at the Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, said in a statement that diversity and inclusion were among the company’s core values.

“We will continue to not distinguish between same and opposite sex spouses when it comes to the benefits we offer under our health insurance plan,” she said.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Walmart Agrees to Pay $7.5 Million Settlement in Same-Sex Benefits Case appeared first on Law Street.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a complaint on Wednesday against Southwest Airlines for kicking a Muslim man off his flight back in April for talking in Arabic, his native language. In the complaint to the Department of Transportation, CAIR calls for a federal investigation into the incident for what it believes was racial and religious profiling.

On April 6, 26-year-old political science student Khairuldeen Makhzoomi was sitting on the plane, talking on the phone with his uncle about a dinner with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon the night before. He realized a woman was staring at him when he hung up the phone, and thought maybe he had been talking too loud. He had told his uncle about the meeting and ended the conversation by the common phrase “insha’Allah,” meaning “God willing.” The woman left the plane abruptly, and a few minutes later police officers came up to Makhzoomi.

Did you know Americans are not allowed to know Arabic? A new rule apparently created by airlines. https://t.co/gxUanGbats

— Heidi N Moore (@moorehn) October 6, 2016

According to Southwest Airlines, the company does “not tolerate discrimination” but thought this was a legitimate reason to investigate a passenger. They wrote in a statement:

The internal review determined that it was the content of the conversation, not the language used, that prompted the report leading to the investigation. Our crew responded by following protocol, as required by federal law, to investigate any potential threat.

It is interesting that it was the content of the conversation that started an investigation, considering the only person who heard it was the woman who alerted the airline staff and the conversation was in Arabic. Southwest still has not apologized to Makhzoomi even though subsequent questioning by the FBI didn’t come up with anything. He felt humiliated and had problems sleeping for days after the incident. He told CNN:

The guy who came and pulled me from the plane, he took me to the jet bridge, I believe he worked with Southwest and I must say he was aggressive in the way he treated me. He was not very nice. He tried to speak to me in Arabic, but I couldn’t understand his Arabic, so I asked him to speak to me in English. I felt oppressed. I was afraid. He said, ‘You seem that you were having a serious conversation on the phone. Who were you talking to?’

“Inshallah” = we hope in English, gets this guy thrown off @SouthwestAir flight. #Inshallah they get sued. https://t.co/Z4SIp2zirj

— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) October 6, 2016

After Makhzoomi told the man he was talking to his uncle about having dinner with the U.N. Secretary-General, he showed him a video of it on his phone. But the man asked, “Why are you talking in Arabic? You know the environment is very dangerous.”

Following that, agents searched Makhzoomi, dogs sniffed his luggage, and his wallet was taken away. He was not allowed back on the plane and did not receive an apology. One agent even told him, “You need to be very honest with us with what you said about the martyrs. Tell us everything you know about the martyrs.” He said he had never mentioned anything about any martyrs but said “God willing” when saying goodbye to his uncle.

Khairuldeen Makhzoomi came to the United States as a legal immigrant with his sister in 2010. He is a student at University of California, Berkeley, and is about to apply for his master’s degree. He pointed out that he is very grateful for what the United States has provided him. But the incident in April shook him. He also said, “The U.S. is the land of freedom. People respect the rule of law. How could people be humiliated like this? That was the real shock. I lived under Saddam Hussein. I know what discrimination feels like.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Complaint Filed Against Southwest for Incident with Arabic-Speaking Student appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Airbnb announced a major overhaul of its racial discrimination policies in response to several reports of hosts exhibiting racial bias against renters on the home-sharing app.

Airbnb CEO and co-founder Brian Chesky (pictured above) released a statement on the company website revealing its investigative partnership with Laura Murphy, the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington D.C. Legislative Office. After looking into every aspect of Airbnb’s platform, Murphy detailed her findings in a report titled Airbnb’s Work to Fight Discrimination and Build Inclusion.

The report lists nine policy changes that would “greatly reduce the opportunity for hosts and guests to engage in conscious or unconscious discriminatory conduct.” The changes include:

1. Beginning November 1, 2016, all app users are required to agree to The Airbnb Community Commitment, which pledges to “treat all fellow members, regardless of race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age, with respect, and without judgment or bias.”
2. Users must also agree to Airbnb’s “strengthened and more detailed” nondiscrimination policy, the rules of which Airbnb claims are stronger than what are required by law.
3. Airbnb has put in place a full-time product team to fight bias and promote diversity.
4. It will encourage and grow instant book listings.
5. The company will experiment with reducing the prominence of guest photos in the booking process and enhancing other parts of host and guests profiles with objective information.
6. Airbnb will also improve its response to discrimination complaints and better enforce its policies.
7. It will also implement an open door policy for discrimination complaints.
8. Airbnb will offer new training for to help people learning how to fight bias.
9. The company will implement the Diversity Rule, a new policy that will mandate that all candidate pools for senior-level positions include women and candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. Airbnb will also expand efforts to bring economic opportunities to minority-owned business and encourage more people from underrepresented populations to use Airbnb.

The changes come after several Airbnb guests adopted the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack to vent their frustrations of being rejected from bookings–only to see the same rental be re-listed later.

#AirbnbWhileBlack #Airbnb pic.twitter.com/3pIGzQsP57

— Q. (@TinaLaBang) July 16, 2015

Black guests’ suppositions were later confirmed by a study conducted by Harvard Business School students Benjamin Edelman, Michael Luca, and Dan Svirsky that found that requests from guests with distinctively African-American names are roughly 16 percent less likely to be accepted than identical guests with distinctively White names. The same also goes for hosts that are black, regardless of whether the property is cheap or expensive

The announcement of new policy changes designed to combat these types of biases is definitely a step in the right direction for the company. Unfortunately there will always be opportunities for people to still discriminate against others. At least now, both guests and users will hopefully be held more accountable.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airbnb Announces New Changes to Fight Racial Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

It is finally seen as professional misconduct for men to make sexist remarks or call women “honey” and similar epithets when practicing law in court. Thanks to the American Bar Association’s (ABA) revisions to its ethics rules, sexism as well as comments or actions based on a person’s religion, race, sex, sexual orientation and other factors are no longer allowed.

Discrimination Against Women

Even though some states already have similar rules in place, there has been no formal, nationwide prohibition against such behavior. Therefore many male lawyers have felt free to use misogynistic language to undermine female opposing counsels, causing many female law practitioners to feel belittled and discriminated against.

Some of the women who spoke with the New York Times described how condescending male lawyers treated them when carrying out their profession. “Don’t raise your voice at me. It’s not becoming of a woman,” one man told lawyer Lori Rifkin when she objected to him interrupting her. “I got the pat on the head,” said Jenny Waters, now chief executive of the National Association of Women Lawyers, about working as a lawyer.

NAWL is a group that has supported the rights of female lawyers since 1899 and has over 5,000 members. They sent a letter to ABA to support the amendment to the ethics rule. And it worked–ABA presented the revised rule at its annual meeting in San Francisco on Tuesday. Any violations against it will result in either a fine or suspension from practice.

The Changes

The additions to the rule prevent discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and several other factors. They also detail what constitutes sexual harassment. The updated the ethics rule notes:

Discrimination and harassment by lawyers […] undermines confidence in the legal profession and the legal system. Such discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others

The rule also describes that it applies during any activity that is related to the lawyer’s practicing of law. This includes when:

Representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.

This part of the rule caused critics to say that the new rules could lead to limitations on free speech while working with clients, but so far no lawyers have objected to the adoption of the revisions. Further revisions were made before approving the rule to make sure it is only offensive conduct if the person doing it “knows or reasonably should know [it] is harassment or discrimination.”

Only 36 percent of law practitioners are women, according to the American Bar Association, and they still make about $1,400 less than men per month. But at least this new rule is more than welcome as a step forward in the fight for gender equality.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No More Sweet-Talking: ABA Bans Calling Female Lawyers ‘Honey’ appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the “clock kid”? Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old from Irving, Texas became a viral phenomenon last year after he was arrested for bringing in a homemade clock to school to show a teacher, which was mistaken by school officials as a bomb. The outcry that followed shoved the teenager into the media spotlight, making him an inadvertent symbol for religious tolerance and equal protection under the law. As his story spread, his fame brought with it opportunities such as invitations to the White House, offers for multiple scholarships, and support from organizations such as NASA, MIT, and many major tech companies.

One year later, the Mohamed family is filing a lawsuit against the Irving Independent School District (IISD), his former principal, and the City of Irving for violating Ahmed’s constitutional rights.

The lawsuit highlights IISD’s alleged history of racial and religious discrimination, including many such incidents that Mohamed himself experienced involving classmates and teachers while he was a student in the school district. It also details “unconstitutional arrests” by Irving’s Police Department, which, the lawsuit claims, city officials knew about but showed “deliberate indifference” toward. The failure of officials to provide training to officers after such incidents “[led] Irving police officers to arrest Ahmed Mohamed without probable cause.”

Last November, it was reported that Ahmed and his family wrote letters to the City of Irving threatening a civil suit unless they received $15 million in damages and apologies from city and school officials. This suit did not provide specific monetary demands, only requesting a trial by jury.

Ahmed and his family moved to Qatar late last year, accepting a scholarship offer from the Qatar Foundation. However, Ahmed has expressed a desire to return to the U.S., telling The Washington Post that  he gets “bored” in Qatar and would like to study in an American college.

Both IISD and the City of Irving responded to the lawsuit to WFAA on Monday. The school district said it “continues to deny violating the student’s rights,” while the City “is prepared to vigorously defend itself” in the case.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Clock Kid” Is Back and Suing His Former City and School District appeared first on Law Street.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a North Carolina voting law on Friday, concluding that it was passed with clear “discriminatory intent.”

The ruling forcefully reversed a district court finding that did not acknowledge the law’s intent to discriminate. In the ruling, Circuit Court Judge Diana Gibbon Motz writes,

In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.

Motz, also writing for judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd, goes on to note that the sequence of events that led to the law provides sufficient evidence to conclude that the law intentionally sought to restrict voting rights of African American voters in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act.

While many argue that voting laws like the one in North Carolina are passed for partisan reasons–by focusing on minority communities that traditionally vote for Democrats, Republican legislators may be seeking an electoral edge–the way this law in particular targeted race amounts to racial discrimination. And yes, challenges to these laws could also be considered partisan efforts on behalf of the Democrats as well, but the racial focus here appears to take it a step further.

A Quick Look at the Voting Rights Act

To understand this case in North Carolina, it’s important to understand the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed the VRA in 1965 to ensure that African Americans and all minority voters would not be discriminated against at the polls.

The law took a particularly active approach to dealing with an enormous challenge. It created a formula to identify states and locales where voting was polarized by race and then added additional safeguards to changing voting laws there. Section 4 of the law created that so-called “coverage formula,” and coupled it with a preclearance requirement in Section 5. That requirement mandated that state and local governments falling within the coverage formula get explicit approval from the Department of Justice before changing voting laws.

The law also maintains provisions to ensure that race-based discrimination does not happen and places redistricting requirements on states to ensure minority representation, among other protections. But the preclearance requirement and coverage formula took the center of attention in an infamous Supreme Court ruling in 2013. That case, Shelby County v. Holder, struck down the coverage formula and ended the preclearance system as it existed at the time. Justice Roberts, who wrote the 5-4 opinion, concluded that the law employed “extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem,” but that those measures are no longer needed. He went on to argue that the coverage formula used to determine which areas require preclearance now violates states’ rights and equal sovereignty as laid out in the 10th Amendment.

Since that ruling, governments have been free to change their voting laws as they see fit without the need for preclearance from the Justice Department. And that brings us to the recent challenge in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Ruling

Judge Motz notes in the ruling that between 2000 and 2012–a period when preclearance was needed for to all statewide and many local voting law changes in North Carolina–registration and participation surged among black voters. By 2012, black voter registration had increased by about 50 percent and turnout nearly reached parity with that of white voters, at about 70 percent. But shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Shelby County ruling, the state assembly began the process to overhaul its voting laws. According to the ruling, the new law would have several effects on black voters in the coming November election:

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used.

In cases like this, it is particularly difficult to prove that a legislature acted with discriminatory intent, but the court concluded that there was enough evidence to indicate that race was central to the new law. That holds true, according to Motz, even if it was done for partisan reasons and not outright racial hatred or racism. The ruling notes that almost immediately after the Shelby County opinion came down in June 2013, the North Carolina legislature began drafting new voting restrictions. It also notes:

Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

This indicates that shortly after the state did not need preclearance to pass a new voting law, it looked into how certain voting practices related to race, and then passed a new law limiting certain practices. Based on that sequence of events, the court ruled there was clear intent to discriminate based on race.

Going Forward

While the ruling effectively struck down the law, the court declined to use another section of the Voting Rights Act to impose a preclearance requirement on North Carolina after finding discriminatory intent. Essentially, it chose not to reinstate the preclearance requirement on the state using a different part of the VRA. As Rick Hasen–a law professor at University of California, Irvine–notes in a blog post, the state can still appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit en banc, which means that all of the judges, not just the original panel of three judges, would review the case. It could also appeal to the Supreme Court, but as Hasen notes, the court may not decide to hear the case given its current eight justice makeup and the Circuit Court’s decision not to implement a preclearance requirement.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why A Circuit Court Struck Down North Carolina’s Discriminatory Voting Law appeared first on Law Street.

In the gig economy, where rides, dates, and living rooms are outsourced, where services are offered by independent contractors who are not employed–but operate under the auspices of a larger conglomeration–who is responsible for mistreatment and discrimination against customers? The person directly discriminating, or the company whose platform allows room for discrimination? Airbnb–an application that connects travelers to the living spaces of locals, in lieu of traditional lodging–is grappling with these questions as users report being discriminated against.

Over the past year or so, as Airbnb has blossomed (the company is valued at $25 billion, with hosts in 34,000 cities, and 191 countries), travelers have increasingly been turned down by discriminatory hosts. A January study by the Harvard Business School offers data that buffers the anecdotal evidence: in the five American cities it covered, the study found African-American travelers received positive reviews 42 percent of the time. But 50 percent of white travelers received a positive review. Those numbers are identical when considering how often a traveler with a stereotypical African-American sounding name–Darnell, Rasheed, Tamika–was accepted in comparison to a stereotypical white or neutral name like Brad or Kristen.

Airbnb has terminated hosts who were found to violate the service’s tolerance policy–and federal law. But that does not mean the company is blameless for any wrongdoing on behalf of its hosts, and as affected users threaten to take their cases to court, Airbnb is taking steps to reform its methods and eliminate any room for discrimination and racism. A few weeks ago, Airbnb hired Laura Murphy, the former head of the ACLU’s Washington D.C. legislation office, to conduct a review of its ability to deal with incidents involving discrimination and racism. Her report is expected by September.

This summer, Airbnb’s ability to counter lawsuits brought about by its users will be tested: in May, a class-action discrimination suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in D.C. by Gregory Selden, a black man who claims he was denied by a host because of his race. Airbnb will respond to the lawsuit by July 13. When users sign into the service, they are prompted with a “class-action waiver,” which essentially ensures people waive their right to sue, or join class-action lawsuits agains the service.

It will be interesting to see how that protective tool holds up in court with the Selden case. According to Joanne Doroshow, executive director of New York Law School’s Center for Justice and Democracy, change will only follow if cases like Selden’s prove successful. “Class-action cases have been the only effective way to prove and remedy systemic discrimination because you can’t prove a pattern of behavior with individually filed cases,” she said.

Meanwhile, new players are entering the home-sharing market in efforts to address customers who are wary about encountering racism and discrimination on Airbnb. Stefan Grant launched Noirbnb–a service geared toward people of color, though they accept profiles from everyone–after he and his friend were greeted by a swarm of cops at the Airbnb property they were staying at in Atlanta. A neighbor thought they were burglars.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #AirbnbWhileBlack: When Discrimination and the Gig Economy Intersect appeared first on Law Street.

The cacophony of disapproving mutterings and boos gave way to a sharp chant: “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

No, this was not an NBA Finals game or even the response to a bad film. It was the House floor on Thursday when a handful of Republicans switched positions after time expired on a vote. The vote was on an amendment that Democrats say would have furthered protections for the LGBT community. What initially looked like a 217-206 “yea” vote for the measure–which was drafted by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)–became a 212-213 “nay” vote.

In an unusual move, GOP members were allowed to switch their votes after the clock expired, and without walking up to the front–where each member whose mind had changed would be identified. Instead, they were able to privately change their vote through electronic vote counters.

Maloney was irate about the “craven” and “ugly” episode, “It tells me talk is cheap, and all this happy nonsense about letting the House do its will is just that: nonsense,” he told The Hill.

His amendment would have essentially prevented federal funding from going to companies that claim religious freedom in the name of discriminating against LGBT workers, nullifying a provision in a defense bill passed by the House on Wednesday that critics say would have taxpayers funding discrimination against the LGBT community.

The National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 fiscal year would effectively increase the salary of U.S. military personnel. But it also contained an amendment drafted by Rep. Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma) that would ensure federal funding was not discriminatory toward companies with strong religious views. Critics contend that, if passed, the bill’s language would allow those companies to receive taxpayer money regardless of whether they discriminate against LGBT workers on the basis of their religious views.

The scene on the House floor was a he-said-she-said game involving leaders and rank and file members from both parties. Kevin McCarthy (R-California), the House Majority Leader, was the one who Democrats suspect led the vote change. Maloney’s account of an exchange with McCarthy exhibits the combative nature of a divided House, where each side is steadfast in its viewpoint while some members have reelection in their sights:

“I said, ‘What are you doing? You can let this go; your own members are supporting it,’ and he said, ‘Get back on your own side of the aisle.’ And I said to him, ‘What side of the aisle am I supposed to stand on to support equality?'”

Four of the Republicans who changed their vote will be up for re-election this year.

What does Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), Speaker of the House, think about this schoolyard kerfuffle? “I don’t know the answer. I don’t even know,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Democrats ‘Shame’ Republicans After Vote Change appeared first on Law Street.

A pastor who accused Whole Foods of anti-LGBTQ discrimination is now facing accusations and a lawsuit against him alleging that he made up the entire incident.

Jordan Brown, an openly gay pastor at the Church of Open Doors in Austin, Texas, filed a lawsuit against Whole Foods after he allegedly received a cake at the chain’s flagship Austin location on April 14 with an anti-gay slur written on it. While he requested that the bakery write “Love Wins” on top of the cake, he claims that the bakery associate decided to add homophobic language to it:

LOVE WINS FAG. That’s not the cake I ordered, @WholeFoods and I am offended for myself & the entire #LGBT community pic.twitter.com/cuxuv6mL3G

— Jordan D Brown (@PasJordanBrown) April 18, 2016

Brown’s suit alleges that he didn’t notice the writing until he was on his way home, and proceeded to pull the car over and call the corporate office to report what had happened. After he didn’t receive a response, he then called the store itself and received an apology from a Team Leader who promised to investigate the matter. However, a few hours later, he received a call back from the same employee who said that there appeared to be no wrongdoing on the part of the store or the bakery associate.

Brown proceeded to post a now-deleted video that same day in which he tearfully recounted the incident. He also pointed out that the seal on the box hadn’t been broken, as evidence that he hadn’t tampered with the cake.

On Tuesday, Whole Foods responded in a statement that shot down Brown’s accusations as “fraudulent.” The company also released security footage that pointed to the fact that Brown would have easily been able to see the writing through the clear portion of the packaging before he left the store. The company also stated that the bakery associate in question was a member of the LGBTQ community. As of publication, Brown hadn’t yet responded to the latest statements by Whole Foods.

If it turns out that Brown was faking the incident after all, he made a strange choice in choosing which company to go after. Whole Foods has a history of upholding LGBTQ rights as a company, offering benefits to same-sex partners since its founding and participating in pride parades. The company also reinforced its support for LGBTQ rights in its latest statement, posting a photo of its Austin staff with the caption #LoveWins.

The jury’s still out on whether or not Brown was making this up, but this response by Whole Foods is just the icing on the cake for anyone doubting his story. Stay tuned for updates.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Whole Foods Shoots Down Claims of Homophobia Against Openly Gay Pastor appeared first on Law Street.

The Army has taken a step toward a more inclusive work environment this past week. Decorated Captain Simratpal Singh was finally granted the right to fully practice his religious faith while serving in the army. Captain Singh practices the Sikh faith, in addition to 500,000 other Americans, according to the Sikh Coalition. As a Sikh, Singh wears his unshorn hair in a turban and has a beard. Up until April 1, 2016, he did not have the long-term religious accommodation to wear a turban and keep his hair unshorn–but that just changed.

Singh’s story begins 10 years ago at West Point. In his first year he had to shave his head and beard in order to continue his education. In the New York Times, Dave Philips interviewed Singh about this experience a decade ago. Singh said,

As terrible as it sounds when I showed up at West Point, I accepted defeat. But I promised myself I would find a way back to my roots while also serving my country. I knew I would figure out a way.

Singh went on to graduate with an honors degree, serve as a Army ranger in Afghanistan, and earn a Bronze Star as well as an Army Achievement Award. The year after Singh graduated from West Point the Army began allowing Sikhs to serve with turbans, beards, and unshorn hair through a special waiver. Once Singh graduated with his Masters in electrical engineering last fall he told his commander he intended to report to his next assignment with his turban, unshorn hair, and beard. He then submitted a written request for religious accommodation. Assistant Secretary of the Army Debra Wada granted him permission to wear the turban, unshorn hair, and beard on December 09, 2015 in a letter, but only on a temporary basis. In the letter Wada wrote,

You may wear a beard, turban, and uncut hair in a neat and tidy manner that presents a professional and well groomed appearance. The bulk of your hair, beard, or turban may not be such that it impairs your ability to wear the Kevlar helmet or other protective equipment or impedes your ability to operate your assigned weapon, military equipment, or machinery…This religious accommodation may be revoked if required by military necessity.

What makes this scenario particularly incredulous is that Sikhs served in the U.S military from WW1 through 1981 without restrictions on their religious articles of faith. Sikhs already enrolled in the services before the 1981 restriction were grandfathered. The Army claims the turban and hair could impede the soldiers from fully securing gas masks on themselves, or other protective gear, yet military divisions in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia allow Sikhs to serve without any restrictions.

Court rules in favor of Sikh soldier. Breaking on military religious discrimination case: https://t.co/Z0rcvqko9l pic.twitter.com/abRlt3vOqA

— Sikh Coalition (@sikh_coalition) March 4, 2016

In early March, Singh went to court to protest the additional gas mask test the Army required of him to make a final decision on his religious accommodation request. Singh had already done gas mask testing with his unit, so he argued the additional test targeted him because of his religious articles of faith. He filed a restraining order under “unusual or discriminatory testing,” and U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled in his favor.

Singh achieved his religious accommodation last week with the help of the Sikh Coalition, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and law firm of McDemott Will and Emery. It’s a huge win for Singh and there is solace in this victory for the Sikh community. He told New York Times,

Throughout the Army’s history, it’s been slow to move but has always moved in the right direction. I think that happened here. It only makes sense that our military would reflect the diversity of our nation. Kids like me used to be told you can be anything you want to be, but you can’t serve your country in uniform. That is no longer the case.

However, Singh’s victory does not overpower the fact that any other Sikh wishing to wear his turban will have to go through a petition process for religious accommodation. Freedom of religion is, in essence, as old as our armed forces–it’s about time that was recognized.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sikh Army Captain Wins Religious Freedom Victory appeared first on Law Street.

Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School is under investigation by the American Bar Association (ABA) for possible discriminatory practices. There are concerns that the law school discriminates against students who are LGBTQ, or who begin their career at the school as Mormons, and then change their faith. A student group called FreeBYU has brought these concerns to the ABA, officials from the organization are now reviewing the complaint.

BYU Law requires its students to sign a strict honor code, which forbids homosexual relationships. Additionally, it bars students from leaving the Mormon faith before graduation, although non-Mormons are allowed to admitted to the school from the get-go as long as they pay a higher tuition rate. If students break the honor code, they could be kept from completing their degrees. The members of FreeBYU are claiming that these actions violate the ABA’s nondiscrimination guidelines.

A petition asking to “Restore Religious Freedom at BYU” that focuses particularly on the treatment of students who have left the Mormon church has garnered almost 3000 signatures, and points out that students who left the Mormon faith while enrolled used to be allowed to continue on as students, as long as they paid the higher tuition rate levied on non-Mormons. According to FreeBYU, that law was changed in 1993.

Exactly what rules a private law school–particularly one that is religiously affiliated–has to follow are difficult to untangle. But as Annie Knox, of the Salt Lake Tribune explains:

Religious institutions such as BYU have some leeway in tailoring their admissions and hiring processes to indicate a ‘preference’ for people with a certain religious affiliation, according to the most recent ABA guidelines, so long as the preferences are clear before students and faculty come to campus. But the standards may not be used to limit academic freedom or to discriminate when it comes to admission or retention of students. The professional organization of attorneys and law students forbids schools from ‘taking action’ based on race, religion, gender, nationality, sexuality, age or disability.

Spokespeople from BYU have acknowledged that the school was asked to provide information to the ABA after a request was made a few months ago, and that the school is confident it will retain its accreditation. But at this point, that decision will be left in the ABA’s hands–if the organization believes that BYU Law has indeed acted incorrectly, an investigator may be sent to the school and the question could end up in front of an accrediting committee.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Claims of Discrimination at BYU Law May Spark ABA Involvement appeared first on Law Street.

While perusing my Twitter feed the other day, I came across a ridiculous tweet from Cosmopolitan magazine that got me thinking about weight in the workplace:

Ashley Benson Responds to Hollywood Saying She's "Too Fat" https://t.co/eODHBO3ikX pic.twitter.com/LIDUjPdwLL

— Cosmopolitan (@Cosmopolitan) January 4, 2016

A little background—Ashley Benson is one of the four stars of the hit ABC Family show “Pretty Little Liars”—and believe me, she is nowhere near fat. In fact, she even admits that she’s a size 2 in both the short Cosmo piece and the longer article that it is based on, which appeared in Ocean Drive.

This all begs the question—since when was a size 2 too fat?

Well, Hollywood is a terrible and subjective sort of beast. Benson is not the first young woman in show business to make a comment about someone saying she is too fat. Jennifer Lawrence, for instance, has always been outspoken about her love for food, and she has said on more than one occasion that she is considered a “fat actress.” As with Benson, Lawrence is definitely not fat. She is, however, curvy in that effortless way that makes her a bombshell.

So is Hollywood saying that skinny (i.e. without curves) is perfect and curvy is fat? What about the average woman in the United States, who is 5’ 4” and weighs 166 pounds?

It caused me to take a step back and think about the fact that Ashley Benson’s and Jennifer Lawrence’s workplaces are Hollywood. Their sources of livelihood are their acting chops and their appearances. So, when thought of in that way, wouldn’t being turned down for a part because you are “too fat” be considered workplace discrimination?

Surprisingly, no. There is really only one state in the United States–Michigan–that has any sort of law about weight discrimination in the workplace, and even then, it’s really difficult to prove in a courtroom. In 2013, a large number of cocktail waitresses tried to sue a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey for forcing them to do weigh-ins and lose weight on a regular basis, and they lost. Overweight and obese people–and those are subjective terms, since everyone who isn’t a medical doctor has a different opinion on what constitutes an obese person–are not a protected class. This means that, legally, workplaces can discriminate against obese job applicants and employees.

Think about that for a minute.

While “overweight” people probably can’t be fired from a job they already have–there has to be a reason for firing someone, since unlawful termination is easier to prove than other types of workplace discrimination–there have been studies that have shown that hiring managers are significantly less likely to hire an “overweight” person than a skinny person. In addition, skinny or otherwise attractive employees are more likely to get promoted and receive pay raises, whereas heavier employees are more often passed over or forced to work extra hours to get the same benefits, promotions, or compensation.

When all of this is put together, the conclusion is a dreary one. Yes, weight does matter in the workplace, even if you aren’t an actress or a model. Being considered fat or overweight may keep you from getting a job, and if you already have a job, it may keep you from advancing in your career. You’ll likely have to work harder to earn what you believe you deserve. It’s a troubling world that we live in, where people’s subjective opinions about what others should look like affect their employment opportunities, even when they aren’t famous actresses. Reality, unfortunately, isn’t known for being nice to people.

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Weight Matter in the Workplace? appeared first on Law Street.

After a two year investigation into complaints of civil rights and health violations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a $4 million settlement for former employees at the Sara Lee factory located in Paris, Texas. This case marks the largest settlement in EEOC history involving a hostile work environment. The EEOC took on the case after twenty-five workers filed complaints against the company during their time at the now-shuttered factory, which closed in 2011. Attorneys now estimate that over seventy employees stand to benefit from the settlement. In addition to financial reparations, the company will be required to implement measures to prevent workplace discrimination and to submit regular reports to the EEOC. Read on for a look inside the landmark case.

The Allegations Against Sara Lee

The EEOC’s two year investigation found that black employees were targets of intimidation and were denied promotions that went to their white peers. Black employees reported racial slurs and graffiti during their time at the factory, incidents which were corroborated by the EEOC. A lawsuit filed separately from the EEOC complaint revealed that the graffiti included racial slurs, threats, and crude drawings of apes and black men with nooses. A large portion of the alleged abuse came from white supervisors within the factory and several Sara Lee officials have been accused of ignoring complaints from black employees about the conditions within the factory. In addition, workers were reportedly exposed to black mold asbestos and other toxins during their daily work. The working conditions were so hazardous that:

One of the cake lines was nicknamed the ‘cancer line,’ because so many people were getting sick, said Sara Kane, one of the workers’ attorneys, of the law office Valli, Kane & Vagnini.

According to the investigation, black employees were exposed to these conditions while their white colleagues were promoted to positions located in safer areas of the factory. These white employees were allegedly often less-experienced than their black co-workers but they received promotions nevertheless.

According to the EEOC’s report, several black employees contracted cancer and other diseases as a direct result of their exposure to toxins in the workplace. When black employees reported their diseases to management, their complaints were either ignored or dismissed as being unrelated to working conditions within the factory. The closure of the factory in 2011 meant that the EEOC had relatively limited exposure to the physical conditions of the factory, so the investigation did rely heavily on interviews with employees.

 The Role of the EEOC

The EEOC enforces federal laws against discrimination in most companies with 15 employees or more (although this can vary according to certain jurisdictions and circumstances). The EEOC processes both private sector and federal sector violations of discrimination laws, although it takes a more active investigative role in private sector cases. There are two distinct private sector and a federal sector mediation programs, which each offer dispute resolution with EEOC cooperation. If conciliation cannot resolve a private sector dispute, the EEOC has the right to pursue litigation and also has a right to participate in an ongoing lawsuit. According to the EEOC website,

The EEOC has the authority to investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Our role in an investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and then make a finding. If we find that discrimination has occurred, we will try to settle the charge. If we aren’t successful, we have the authority to file a lawsuit to protect the rights of individuals and the interests of the public. We do not, however, file lawsuits in all cases where we find discrimination.

The EEOC may handle tens of thousands of complaints every year, but they very rarely escalate to the heights that the Sara Lee case has, which makes the future of Sara Lee critically important. If Sara Lee complies with the EEOC regulations and actively changes its workplace environment in the coming years, it will serve as a model for other companies that have had large-scale reports of discrimination. The successful transformation of the Sara Lee case will lie with its parent company–Tyson Foods.

A New Name and a New Brand

In 2012, so chronologically after the alleged abuse occurred, Sara Lee went through a major re-branding, effectively splitting the business in two. The food side of the business was labeled Hillshire Brands while the tea and coffee end of the company (centered in Europe) was named D.E. Master Blenders 1753. The name change was speculated to have been prompted by lackluster sales of meat products.

In 2014, Hillshire Brands completed a merger with Tyson Foods, Inc. which The Wall Street Journal referred to as the “meat industry’s biggest deal.” After the merger, Hillshire’s chief executive Sean Connolly stepped down, clearing the way for new leadership. However, the Sara Lee discrimination case did not disappear with the name change. Although headlines associate the case with Sara Lee, Tyson is now liable for the settlement and for rebuilding the brand’s image in the wake of the EEOC investigation. In an interview with Buzzfeed News, Tyson Foods spokesperson Worth Sparkman said the company is

‘Committed to treating our team members with dignity and respect and have a policy against harassment and discrimination,’ noting Tyson Foods requires annual training and offers a toll-free help line for workers to report any concerns without fear of retaliation. ‘While we don’t agree with all of the allegations in this case, we oppose any unlawful discrimination in the workplace and believe it makes sense to resolve this matter,’ Sparkman wrote in an email. When asked which allegations the company disagrees with Sparkman said, via email, ‘We’ll point out that any alleged conduct in this case occurred before portions of Sara Lee were acquired by Tyson Foods in 2014.’

The Tyson brand has also had a series of legal skirmishes over working conditions over the past few years. This November, the Supreme Court heard a case against Tyson in which employees argued that Tyson unlawfully failed to pay for the time it took them to put on and then remove safety equipment during their daily tasks. In a lower court, employees were awarded half of what their counsel requested. The case has raised interesting questions about collective action lawsuits, as the case involves more than 3,000 workers in total: Should that many employees be allowed to file their complaint at one time, in a single case?

The Supreme Court has approached the case less as an issue of wage violations and more as a debate over what the threshold should be for the number of participants in a collective action lawsuit. Yet, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the employees, Tyson may pay out even more than they it in the Sara Lee case–approximately $6 million.

Conclusion

The Sara Lee case is a unique one in that a significant number of workers were courageous enough to file complaints and patient enough to wait for the legislative process to work over several years. Not every discrimination case is investigated by the EEOC, either because there is not sufficient evidence or because victims do not feel safe reporting misconduct. Hopefully, the Sara Lee case will inspire other companies to enact preventative measures to disband discrimination. The EEOC has delivered a decisive victory for the employees of the Texas factory, and we’ll have to see what effects it might have in future discrimination cases.

Resources

CBS Dallas Forth Worth: $4M Settlement Awarded In Sara Lee Discrimination Case

The Chicago Tribune: Sara Lee Discriminated Against Black Employees, Attorneys Say

Dallas Business Journal: EEOC Wins Record Settlement for Former Texas-based Sara Lee Factory Workers

Buzzfeed: Sara Lee Will Pay $4 Million To Settle Racial Discrimination Suit

Business Insider: Turning Sara Lee Into Hillshire Brands Is A Perfect Example Of How Not To Name A Company

The Wall Street Journal: Tyson Completes Acquisition of Hillshire

EEOC: Overview

JD Supra: United States Supreme Court Hears Argument in Tyson Foods’ FLSA Collective Action

The New York Times: Supreme Court Hears Case for Tyson Foods Class-Action Lawsuit

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The EEOC and Sara Lee: A Landmark Discrimination Case in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve all heard about the pay gap between men and women, but it seems that one specific statistic is used to illustrate this issue. Proponents of new equal pay laws claim that women make “77 cents for every dollar a man makes.” It’s a number that has been passed around for years by feminist groups, political organizations, and even many prominent politicians. Even President Obama used the “77 cents to a dollar” claim in his 2014 State of the Union address as an example of injustice against women.

Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.

-President Obama, 2014 State of the Union address

While that statistic is accurate, further analysis indicates that it may not be the best way to capture the issue at hand. The available evidence suggests that there is a notable wage gap, but that evidence also suggests that the cause of the gap is due to a wide range of factors, which must be taken into account when talking about wage disparities.

Where does this “77 cents” statistic come from and to what extent is wage discrimination a problem for women in the workforce?

The Statistics

You get the 77 cents claim when you take the median, full-time, year-round wage for men and compare it to that of women using data from the census. While accurate based on that calculation, it may also be misleading. The statistic does not take into consideration differences in skills, education level, relevant experience, benefits, hours worked, or even occupation. According to the Washington Post, comparing wages based on weekly earnings narrows the gap to 19 cents and when you look at hourly wages the gap is 14 cents, but those measures also have drawbacks.

The variance between different wage gap estimates generally comes from how these statistics are gathered. Each survey and calculation use different methodologies and it’s very difficult to determine objectively how and if discrimination plays a role in wage differences.

So what’s the pay difference when you take all these into consideration? What other factors may also cause this gap?

Causes:

Hours and Family Care

According to the Center for American Progress, women work on average 35 minutes per day fewer than men. While this most likely will not have an impact on employees who are salaried, that difference will have a notable effect on workers receiving an hourly wage.

According to a Harvard Business Review Study, 43 percent of women with children leave the workforce at some point. There are many reasons why women drop out of the workforce after having children–unpaid maternity leave causes many women to leave their jobs to raise their children due to high childcare costs and time constraints. The statistics also show that once women leave the workforce, many never return. Of those who stop working, only three-quarters of them will eventually start again, and less than half will resume full-time jobs. Because many women don’t return to work in the same capacity as they left, their wages and experience levels are typically lower once they re-enter. Available evidence suggests that having children disproportionately affects women’s careers relative to their husbands. BLS data shows that women who are not married have a much smaller wage gap–earning 95 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Education and Occupations

Men and women also choose different career paths, which often can result in large income differences. In 2013, Georgetown University conducted a survey on the average wage by college major. The study found that nine of the ten best-paying majors were mostly chosen by men:

1. Petroleum Engineering: 87 percent male
2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48 percent male
3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67 percent male
4. Aerospace Engineering: 88 percent male
5. Chemical Engineering: 72 percent male
6. Electrical Engineering: 89 percent male
7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97 percent male
8. Mechanical Engineering: 90 percent male
9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83 percent male
10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90 percent male

On the other hand, nine out of ten of the lowest paying majors were dominated by women:

1. Counseling Psychology: 74 percent female
2. Early Childhood Education: 97 percent female
3. Theology and Religious Vocations: 34 percent female
4. Human Services and Community Organization: 81 percent female
5. Social Work: 88 percent female
6. Drama and Theater Arts: 60 percent female
7. Studio Arts: 66 percent female
8. Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94 percent female
9. Visual and Performing Arts: 77 percent female
10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55 percent female

These numbers show that women generally prefer careers that help serve the community or require a level of artistic ability. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to enter a field that involves engineering and manufacturing development. This may be the biggest factor for wage differences, as a community organizer would not make the same as a biochemical engineer.

But why are so few women entering these higher paying, male dominated fields? A study by Indiana University Bloomington shows that many women who enter these “sex-segregated” fields experience high levels of stress due to “coworkers doubting their competence,” “low levels of support from coworkers,” and even sexual harassment. Instead of outright wage discrimination–where women are given less money than men for the same work–this study suggests that different biases push women into lower-paying fields.

Women also tend to prefer jobs that have greater benefits (paid maternity leave and more vacation time) even if the pay is lower. According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, when benefits are included in a worker’s total compensation, the wage gap shrinks to 3.6 percent.

Overall Pay Difference

According to PolitiFact, when every factor is accounted for, the wage gap narrows to 93 to 95 cents per dollar. This does not indicate equal pay, but it also shows that 77 cent statistic can be overly simplistic. The evidence suggests that outright discrimination has decreased over the years, but it still exists and certain factors disproportionately affect women in the workforce. According to a survey by Glamour magazine, only 39 percent of women asked for a higher pay when starting a new job versus 54 percent of men.

But there is also a large chance that wage differences may be due to discrimination. For example, women may be denied raises or promotions over their male coworkers. According to a Gallup survey, 15 percent of women feel that they were wrongfully denied a promotion because of their gender.

There are other things to consider as well. Raising the tipped minimum wage would greatly benefit women as they make up 2/3 of tip workers. Pay transparency would allow women to discuss their pay with their co-workers, making it easier to identify pay discrimination. Paid and longer maternity leave would also encourage mothers to re-enter the workforce in stronger numbers.

Conclusion

It’s incredibly difficult to determine the exact size of the gender wage gap and the extent to which discrimination plays a role. Because each study uses different calculations, there are often significant disparities in gap estimates. But nearly all reliable and credible surveys do show there is some level of wage discrimination between men and women–whether it is 5 percent or 22 percent. Even if the gap is only one percent, that’s still an injustice.

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., 15 percent of Women Feel Unfairly Denied a Promotion

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: Gender Wage Gap May be Much Smaller than Most Think

Georgetown University: The Economic Value of College Majors

Additional

Wall Street Journal: Washington’s Equal Pay Obsession

ARI.org: February 20 is White House Equal Pay Day

Washington Examiner: The ’77 Cents for Every Dollar’ Lie

Washington Post: The White House’s Own Wage Gender Gap

 FactCheck.org: Playing Politics with the Pay Gap

Washington Post: President Obama’s Persistent ’77-cent’ Claim on the Wage Gap Gets a New Pinocchio Rating

Washington Post: The ‘Equal Pay Day’ Factoid that Women Make 78 Cents For Every Dollar Earned by Men

TechRepublic: TechRepublic has Just Published its 2010 IT Skills and Salary Report

 Center for American Progress: Explaining the Gender Wage Gap

The Atlantic: Why 43 percent of Women With Children Leave Their Jobs

Medical Daily: Women Working In Male-Dominated Jobs Experience Higher Levels Of Stress And Health Problems

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seventy-Seven Cents: The Statistics on Wage Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

Two veterans have been denied the Medal of Honor for nearly a century for their life-saving actions on account of their race and religion. Both Pvt. Henry Johnson and Sgt. William Shemin committed tremendous acts of bravery while serving in World War I, but because Johnson was African American and Shemin was Jewish, they did not receive the military’s highest honor. On June 2, 2015, Johnson and Shemin received their Medals of Honor, nearly 97 years after their courageous acts.

These recent Medal of Honor presentations come amid an effort by the Obama Administration to correct past injustice in the military. A provision of the 2002 defense authorization bill prompted the Pentagon to look for potential cases of discrimination in Medal of Honor decisions, and now several of these injustices are finally being righted. Last March, President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to 19 Hispanic, Jewish, and African-American veterans who were overlooked because of their racial and ethnic backgrounds.

In May 1918 near Sainte Menehould, France, Johnson and another member of his regiment fought off at least 12 German soldiers after a surprise attack. While a fellow soldier suffered serious injuries, Johnson moved forward to engage the attacking Germans in hand-to-hand combat forcing them to retreat. Although he suffered severe wounds, Johnson managed to the protect his companion from capture with only his hands and a knife.

A few months later in August 1918, Shemin repeatedly ran across a battlefield to save injured members of his platoon. He risked his life, exposing himself to machine gun and rifle fire. In the process, Shemin was hit by shrapnel and had a bullet lodged in his left ear after it pierced his helmet. He also took leadership of his platoon temporarily after all senior officers died on the battlefield.

Shemin was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his service, but was never given an explanation for why his first Medal of Honor request was denied. Shemin died in 1973 without receiving the Medal of Honor, but earlier this month his daughter, Elsie Shemin-Roth, received the award on his behalf.

Johnson served with the “Harlem Hellfighters,” an all-black regiment put under French command because African-American soldiers could not serve in the same combat units as white Americans. His race was likely the reason he did not receive the Medal of Honor following the war. Johnson died in 1929 and is currently buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Command Sgt. Major Louis Wilson, a commander in the New York National Guard, accepted the award from President Obama on his behalf.

President Teddy Roosevelt wrote that Johnson was one of the “bravest American soldiers in the war,” and in the 1950s Langston Hughes began pushing for him to receive the Medal of Honor. After his service, Johnson was one of the first Americans to receive the Croix de Guerre avec Palme, France’s highest award for valor. He also earned the Wound Chevron–an award that recognized soldiers who were wounded in combat–the  Purple Heart from President Bill Clinton, and the Distinguished Service Cross in 2003.

Senator Chuck Schumerwas one of Johnson’s strongest advocates. Without the determination of Schumer and his staff, Johnson may never have received the Medal of Honor so many years after the fact. The senator’s office managed to find a letter written by Gen. John J. Pershing commending Johnson’s bravery, including excerpts from his peers. Johnson’s Medal of Honor application was resubmitted and the new evidence and eventually approved. After the announcement that Johnson would receive the Medal of Honor, Schumer told The New York Times,

The great thing about America is that we undo our injustices more than any other country… his act and heroism was amazing.

In 2011 Senators Wyden and Merkley wrote a letter to Leon Panetta, the Defense Secretary at the time, stating,

These awards do not properly recognize Private Johnson’s heroism and with new evidence it is now possible for the nation to give Private Johnson the recognition he deserves, the Medal of Honor.

These senators, joined with several other members of Congress, called for an exception to the Medal of Honor rule, which states that heroic actions must have taken place within the last five years to be considered.

Shemin-Roth worked for years to get her father’s heroism properly documented. In an interview last year, she claimed that her father was not given the Medal of Honor because he was Jewish. Senator Claire McCaskill and several Jewish organizations took up his cause and pushed to award the Medal of Honor to Shemin.

After the award ceremony, McCaskill said,

I couldn’t be prouder that we were able to correct these past injustices, and that William Shemin and other Jewish heroes will get the recognition they deserve, and the national gratitude they earned.

While these recent awards show progress in correcting past wrongdoing, we must continue to ensure that all veterans are properly commended for their service. It is a shame that it took our nation almost a century to overlook racial and religious prejudice in the cases of Private Johnson and Sergeant Shemin. If we prevented these injustices in the first place, we would never have to undo them.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Correcting Past Prejudices: Honoring Our Veterans appeared first on Law Street.

Silicon Valley and its main industries–tech companies and venture capital firms–has been long under fire for its lack of gender diversity. From depressing statistics about the diversity of various tech companies, to female developer Adria Richards live tweeting sexist comments at a tech conference in 2013, Silicon Valley has done plenty to live up to that reputation. However, if you’re looking for a pretty damning example of sexism in the industry, look no further than the recent Ellen Pao-Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers case, decided late last week. The decision concluded that the prominent VC firm didn’t discriminate against former employee Pao.

Pao, who is now the interim CEO of social media and news site “Reddit,” started at the prestigious venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers in 2005. A graduate of Princeton, Harvard Law, and Harvard Business School, she was brought on as the chief of staff for John Doerr, one of the senior partners at the firm. Doerr–who was involved in the success of Netscape, Amazon, and Google–is well known as one of Kleiner’s most prominent voices. Pao was then made a junior investing partner, but was never made a senior partner, and was fired in 2012.

Her suit alleged that she was passed over for the senior partner promotion based on sex discrimination, that she was retaliated against for complaining about sex discrimination, and that she was fired because of the complaints she levied. Kleiner claimed that they treated her fairly, and passed her over because she was not going to be a good fit for the job. Pao argues that men with similar profiles and histories were promoted when she wasn’t. Pao’s suit asked for $16 million total, a combination of both punitive and compensatory damages.

The suit was decided against Pao–in other words, it was concluded that Kleiner was not guilty of sex discrimination. Based on the information that the jury had, I have no reason to believe they decided the case as anything other than fairly and to the best of their ability. But there’s an important distinction here–Kleiner can both be not discriminatory and still be a really crappy place to work.

That’s pretty much exactly what happened–Pao brought up a lot of pretty bad evidence about Kleiner’s employees and culture. While Kleiner did end up successful in the suit, they were still dragged through through the mud. Examples cited by Pao include Doerr, who had seemingly always been one of her biggest supporters and mentors, saying to an investor that she had “a female chip on her shoulder.” She also complained that partner Ajit Nazre retaliated against her after their consensual relationship ended. When she complained to Ray Lane, another high-ranking partner, he told her to marry Nazre to solve her problems. She claims another partner gave her a book of sexually explicit drawings, and that yet another didn’t invite women to parties because they “kill the buzz.” It wasn’t all just about Pao, either, as there was discussion of an incident in which Nazre showed up at a female junior partner’s hotel room in just a bathrobe, propositioning her.

So, while Kleiner may not have been guilty of discriminating against Pao specifically because of her gender, it’s pretty clear that they didn’t act appropriately at every turn. This isn’t any sort of surprising revelation–gender discrimination and sexism have long been alleged in Silicon Valley–but this case certainly didn’t help to dispel that concept. While Pao didn’t get her money, she certainly made her point.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ellen Pao Loses Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Kleiner appeared first on Law Street.

As we live in the New Media Age, the internet has become an omnipotent tool that millions of us use every day for a variety of reasons. The internet changed the way we go about our daily lives, providing a myriad of possibilities to meet people, organize tasks, buy products, and even search for people’s public records with the click of a mouse.

Read More: The Big Business of Big Data

As the information broker industry is rapidly growing, the United States is struggling to catch up and adopt comprehensive data protection laws to regulate it. This prompts a discussion on how to balance online access to public records and personal privacy. Read on to learn more about data protection and freedom of information laws, the data broker industry, and the consequences of easy access to online public records.

What are public records?

Public records are documents that can be openly accessed for inspection by any person. Often, personal information becomes a part of a public record when a person interacts with government agencies on the local, state, or federal level. Public records can include quite a collection of data: birth, marriage, death, arrest, tax, property ownership, driver’s license, occupational licenses, and voter registration information. Most of the time, providing personal information to government agencies is mandatory, leaving individuals no choice but to disclose their addresses, social security numbers (SSNs), and medical or employment histories. For example, if one donates over $200 to a political campaign, he has to provide his name, address, and employment information. All of the provided data automatically becomes a matter of an individual’s public record, and can be accessed through countless information broker websites. Court files are also public records, and all information contained within the files, with few exceptions, can be accessed without legal restrictions as well.

How do you access public records?

Historically, public records could be obtained only in paper form by physically going to the government agency or court house that collected and stored the applicable information. Starting in the mid-1990s, courts and government agencies began to provide online access to their public records directories, and to sell public files to information brokers and data compilers. Now, government or information broker websites can provide easy access with just the click of a mouse. The data broker industry is booming with thousands of companies selling all sorts of public records online.

What are information brokers?

Information brokers are companies that collect all sorts of data, including internet browsing information like consumer survey data and social media profiles, analyze an individual’s information, package it, and sell it to advertising and marketing companies. Some of the information brokers also obtain public records from local, state, and federal government agencies, and re-sell them online, adding appropriate packaging and a more sophisticated design to the reports. Many of these companies provide access to public records on a subscription basis, when a member pays a monthly fee for unlimited access to millions of public records. As there are virtually no laws that directly pertain to the information broker industry, public records can be accessed by anyone, regardless of their purpose and intentions. There are also no licensing requirements, no central registration system of any sort, and no mechanism through which it would be possible to request a copy of a personal public record that has been circulating online. Even though the information broker industry has been operating for decades, its volume and scope is much greater now, with thousands of companies mining and compiling individuals’ public records, ready to reveal our most sensitive personal data to anyone at any time.

Watch the video below to learn more about information brokers.

What are the laws that govern the information broker industry in the U.S?

The information broker industry is governed by various data protection and freedom of information laws. While the United States strongly adheres to freedom of information practices codified in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), there is no comprehensive data protection legislation, except for narrowly applicable laws that are subject-specific and limited in scope.

Freedom of Information Laws 

Freedom of information is a fundamental human right recognized in international law and in many national laws around the globe. As of 2012, there were 93 countries that adopted comprehensive freedom of information laws or similar administrative regulations. In the United Sates, the right to access information from the federal government is outlined in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a comprehensive law that provides government accountability and safeguards the freedom to access public records. In addition to this federal legislation, each state has some sort of FOI laws, with different degrees of accessibility and restrictions. As the information broker industry provides services in relation to availability of information contained in public records, it operates within the FOI legal framework.

Data Protection Laws

Data protection laws are centered on safeguarding personal information from unauthorized usage. Worldwide, more than 80 countries have adopted comprehensive laws to uphold the privacy of their citizenry. In 1970s there were only eight countries that had data privacy laws on the books; in 2010 the number skyrocketed to 89. The United States is one of only a few developed countries that doesn’t have a comprehensive law that protects online privacy, but instead relies on sectorial laws that provide limited amounts of regulation and have many loopholes. Most of these laws pertain to personal information held by the federal government, while legislation that regulates personal information in public records systems is essentially limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Fair Credit Reporting Act

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is guided by the fair information practices that were developed by the Department for Health, Education, and Welfare in the 1970s. On the whole, FCRA regulates the practices of credit reporting agencies. It promotes agencies’ accountability and safeguards security of personal data. The law requires information to be accurate, purpose specific, and accessible. It also outlines limitations on collection and usage of personal data as pertaining to credit reporting.

California’s Data Privacy Laws

California is one of the few states that protects the personal privacy of its residents as it pertains to online access to public records. In 2003, it enacted the Online Privacy Protection Act (OPPA) that requires websites that collect personal information on California residents to post and comply with the privacy policy of the state. In 2013, California enacted so-called “Don’t Track” legislation (AB 370) that requires certain websites to disclose information on how they collect data and track users. During the same year, the Right to Know Act was introduced in the State Assembly, but it failed to pass due to strong opposition from the trade groups representing the information technology industry. If enacted, it would require data brokers to provide a copy of an individual’s stored information upon request.

Case Study: Instant Checkmate

Instant Checkmate is a California-based people search engine that operates by compiling and selling instant access to criminal background checks. Originally, Instant Checkmate was a small internet startup, but it recently gained popularity due to its appealing packaging and additional features, such as its public criminal records directory, crime wire blog, and reverse phone look up.

Notably in 2014, Instant Checkmate paid $525,000 in a settlement for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The lawsuit, filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), claimed that the company was operating as a consumer reporting agency, but wasn’t complying with FCRA regulations, including accuracy of provided information and verification of the identity of those who were requesting consumer reports through its website.

Now, the company markets itself as a tool to locate childhood friends and check out online dates. When you enter the website, the first thing you see is a notice that states:

You may not use our service or the information it provides to make decisions about consumer credit, employers, insurance, tenant screening, or any other purposes that would require FCRA compliance.

As the FCRA is limited to regulating credit reporting agencies only, it’s not applicable to the rest of the information broker industry. In order to avoid FCRA regulations many information broker companies simply run a disclaimer stating that they are not a credit reporting agency, and continue to operate outside any legal framework that pertains to  personal privacy. Instant Checkmate is one of many information broker companies that has used this tactic to escape FCRA compliance.

Watch the video below to learn more about Instant Checkmate, how it operates, and how the information obtained through its platform can be used by the third parties.

What are the advantages of online access to public records?

Online access to public records further upholds freedom of information as a fundamental right, and provides certain benefits to consumers and employers.

Benefits for the Citizenry

Access to public records is a mechanism to monitor the government as it allows its citizenry to review official actions and keep government agencies accountable. Online access to public records is an additional and more powerful tool to safeguard liberties and to ensure transparency of governmental practices. In this regard, the internet provides a platform to oversee and track government actions in relation to various matters, including decisions in individual cases.

Benefits for Consumers

Access to public records is an important consumer tool that is widely used in spheres such as employment, child support, retirement, and identity theft prevention, just to name a few. Online access to public records can highly benefit consumers and those who directly interact with government agencies and courts, if public records are accurate and up-to-date.

Benefits for Employers

In addition, access to public records can help employers screen applicants to decrease liability implications in the future. If using appropriate channels of inquiry, online background checks can assist employers in choosing the right candidate for the position.

What are the disadvantages of online access to public records?

Online access to public records increases privacy concerns, especially when the information broker industry lacks government oversight and is poorly regulated.

Discrimination and the Rise of the “Dossier Society”

Due to the fact that everybody can access public records online, individuals’ pasts become a matter of the present, including any transgressions, law violations, or simply embarrassing moments. In turn, it leads to discrimination and disenfranchisement of individuals whose records are not squeaky clean, denying them employment opportunities, normal relationships, and, simply, privacy. Some experts predict that in the future we could become a “dossier society,” meaning a society where everybody has an electronic profile that provides a detailed account of the individual’s life. In this view, a dossier society won’t allow social forgiveness and will force those who have blemishes on their records to work low-paying jobs without any possibilities for professional growth and development.

Economic Crimes

Most public records, including divorce decrees, child custody cases, and bankruptcy filings, contain sensitive information such as SSNs, financial account numbers, and dates of birth. Allowing online access to those records increases the risk of economic crimes, particularly identity theft. Online access to public records exacerbates the problem of financial fraud as it’s relatively easy to obtain personal information on the web as there are hundreds of websites that provide detailed records for a small fee. Identity theft has devastating consequences for victims as they cannot obtain credit, home loans, employment, or rent apartments.

Data in the Courtroom

Details of court cases, including the personal information of plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses, becomes a part of the court record, and, therefore, public records. Not only can revealing personal data discourage plaintiffs from proceeding with cases, but can undermine the safety of those who are involved in the proceedings, including witnesses who testify against one of the parties. In addition, defendants often use personal medical or sexual history to promulgate damaging allegations against plaintiffs in medical bill payment or sexual harassment cases. Online access to public records facilitates the process of obtaining court files, making it relatively easy to mine personal data that can be used to alter court proceedings.

Inaccurate Information

Many times allegations that are made during court proceedings turn out to be false, particularly in disputes between business partners, former lovers, or neighbors. As a result, inaccurate information becomes a matter of an individual’s pubic record. As public records can be widely accessed online, inaccuracies in connecting information to specific individuals also frequently occur. In addition, some information brokers’ files can be outdated, creating additional errors in background reports. Mismatches and inaccuracies in personal data reports can link individuals to crimes they didn’t commit, deny them opportunities for employment, and destroy their reputations. In 2002, a New York resident was awarded $450,000 in damages as his profile contained a false criminal conviction.

Personal Safety

As many information broker companies claim that their services can ensure personal safety by revealing criminal histories of online dates, neighbors, and other acquaintances, online background checks can also do exactly the opposite and jeopardize safety for some people. As personal information of witnesses and victims is a matter of a public record, if their identities and addresses are revealed, they can be targeted by criminals for retribution, stalked, or even re-victimized by their domestic partner.

Targeting Consumers

Information broker companies are clearly making money from compiling and selling public records online. Not only do they amass information from different government websites, but re-package and sort it, creating a brand new product in order to earn additional profit. Information from online public records is extensively used by commercial profilers for marketing and advertising purposes. Business owners also often use information from online public records to target specific groups, including those with credit or bankruptcy problems, for advertising.

Watch the video below to learn more about information brokers and how they are mining, compiling, and selling personal data to third parties.

Conclusion

Without a doubt, citizens of any democratic society should have a right to access public records in order to hold their government accountable and keep its practices transparent. At the same time, personal information of individuals should be protected, and, for that reason, the information broker industry should be regulated to make sure that unauthorized users don’t have access to sensitive and often private matters. As this technology progresses, these questions will all need to be considered.

 Resources

Primary

California Legislative Information: AB-1291 Privacy: Right to Know Act of 2013

California Constitution: Article 1 Declaration of Rights

California Legislative Information: AB-370 Consumers: Internet Privacy

U.S. Department of Justice: The Freedom of Information Act

Additional

Social Science Research Network: Global Data Privacy Laws: 89 Countries, and Accelerating

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: Public Records on the Internet: The Privacy Dilemma

Electronic Privacy Information Center: Privacy and Public Records

Top Ten Reviews: Instant Checkmate

Yahoo Finance: Free Public Criminal Records Directory Offered on Instant Checkmate Website

New Media Institute: What is New Media?

International Association for Social Science Information Services and Technology: Data Protection and Privacy in the United States and Europe

FreedomInfo: 93 Countries Have FOI Regimes, Most Tallies Agree

CNN Money: Data Brokers Settle Charges Over Background Checks

Crime Wire: An In-Depth Look at Instant Checkmate

Crime Wire: What Kind of Background Check Does Instant Checkmate Perform?

National Consumer Law Center: Broken Records: How Errors by Criminal Background Checking Companies Harm Workers and Businesses

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Personal Records Online: Who’s Protecting Your Information? appeared first on Law Street.

Love don’t cost a thing, or at least that’s how it used to be on the swipetastic mobile matchmaking app Tinder. But last week the popular location based dating service rolled out a new paid feature called Tinder Plus. The update has many accusing the company of being ageist.

With Plus, premium users are granted access to features called “Passport” and “Rewind.” If you’ve swiped through all the available singles in your area “Passport” allows you to change your location to connect with people anywhere around the world. Anyone who has ever regretted a swipe may also enjoy “Rewind,” which lets you re-do your last swipe. All in all these aren’t make-or-break features for the app, but their pricing is now under fire.

Tinder Plus users over the age of 30 will have to pay about $20 a month for the upgrade, but younger users under 30 will only have to pay about $10 a month. This gap has older singles protesting the app using #boycottTinder on Twitter, saying it’s discriminatory and arguing that they shouldn’t have to pay more for the same perks.

Tinder’s Vice President of Corporate Communications Rosette Pambakian, defended the age-related pricing telling TakePart via email that it actually benefits the company’s bottom line. She explained saying:

During our testing we’ve learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained, and need a lower price to pull the trigger.

We’ve priced Tinder Plus based on a combination of factors, including what we’ve learned through our testing, and we’ve found that these price points were adopted very well by certain age demographics.

I’m not sure I buy that excuse. Pambakian elaborated by equating Tinder’s price tier with similar student discounts offered by the music-streaming service Spotify for premium services. But in my opinion it looks more like Tinder thinks being older and single makes you desperate, and as a result willing to cough up more money for swipes. Its not like they even need the extra cash, as valuations of the company range around $1 billion.

On a lighter note, if older people are discouraged from using Tinder, we wouldn’t end up with great videos like the following, where a 20-something year old young man sets his grandfather up on Tinder “dates.” Fair warning though, the video below, while adorable, contains some NSFW language:

In regards to demographics, Tinder co-founder Justin Mateen told the Guardian:

Early on, over 90% of our user base was aged between 18 and 24. Today, that number is about 51%. 13-17 year-olds are now over 7%, 25-32 year-olds are about 32%, 35-44 is about 6.5% and the remainder are older than 45.

Based on these figures it’s clear their core demographic is changing. But charging people for bonus features may not be the solution when it comes to legitimizing the “hookup app” as a real dating source. Only time will tell when it comes to whether or not Tinder execs will adjust its pricing due to public disapproval, or whether anyone will accuse them of ageism more seriously. My guess is this Tinder boycott won’t last long when people’s index fingers begin twitching from swipe withdrawal.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Singles Boycotting Tinder Over Alleged Ageism appeared first on Law Street.

The civil rights movement in America attempted to end segregation and racial discrimination of black Americans and secure federal protections of their rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 seemingly sealed the deal, prohibiting discrimination based on race. In spite of that, there is an argument to be made that racial discrimination is still a persistent problem in the United States. One important facet of the discussion is centered around the “war on drugs” and the so-called “tough on crime” policy approach that the United States has adopted since the 1970s. Racially disproportionate drug arrests have resulted in mass incarceration and prompted civil rights concerns. Read on to learn more about current drug policy and its implications in relation to civil rights.

History of Inequality in U.S. Drug Policy

Throughout history there have been many instances in which unequal treatment of various minority groups was evident in American drug laws. The first anti-drug law dates back to 1875, when smoking opium was penalized in San Francisco, primarily, it is believed, to stigmatize Chinese immigrants. In 1914 the Harrison Narcotics Act expanded the powers of the federal government, and concurrently the media portrayed black Americans as the primary users of cocaine, one such narcotic. Later, multiple reports by the media tied Mexican immigrants, who were entering the country for agricultural jobs, to marijuana-related violence. The result of that particular stereotype was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

Congress created its first mandatory minimum sentencing law in 1952, the Boggs Act, which required a minimum sentence of two to ten years for first-time marijuana possession. But the most notorious mandatory minimum drug laws were enacted in New York under Nelson Rockefeller, who was the governor at the time. That mandatory sentence threshold was raised to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life in prison. The “Rockefeller Drug Laws” were enacted in 1973, signifying the beginning of a long-standing “tough on crime” policy in the United States.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was the culmination of the “war on drugs,” requiring identical penalties (a five-year minimum sentence) for five grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine. As crack cocaine was cheap, it dominated poor black communities, while more affluent, usually white communities, used the more expensive powder cocaine.

 Are the U.S. Drug Policies changing?

Under the Obama Administration, the ratio of crack to powder cocaine was significantly reduced when the Fair Sentencing Act was signed into law in August 2010. The current administration also acknowledged that the previous laws were discriminatory and disproportionately impacted communities of color.

State laws are also slowly changing, with California at the forefront of the movement. A new law, “Proposition 47,” enacted in 2014, reduces simple drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Politicians are also starting to speak up, calling for the end of “War on Drugs.” Outgoing Attorney General,Eric Holder is one of the most vociferous proponents of reducing mass incarceration and re-integrating formerly incarcerated individuals back into society.

In addition, legalization of marijuana is a hot topic everywhere in the United States. More and more states have legalized the drug for either recreational or medical use, prompting the idea of country-wide legalization and regulation in the future. The New York Times editorial board and President Barack Obama have spoken out in support of the legalization movement.

It’s plausible that American drug policy is undergoing a transition from prohibition and harsh sanctions toward regulation and rehabilitation practices. But it can still be characterized as a punitive system, highly centered on deterrence through long and harsh sentencing practices. There are also many concerns that the current drug policies are still racist in practice. People of color are disproportionally imprisoned for drug offenses, often creating vicious circles of poverty and crime.

What are the main concerns with the current U.S. Drug Policy?

Our drug policy enforcers are part of the judicial system, and there are many concerns that the judicial system treats members of minority populations more harshly than their counterparts. For example, black men are stopped and frisked at disproportionately higher rates than members of other communities. In 2011 the number of stops of young black men in New York City topped the city’s entire population of young black men: 168,126 stops compared to a population of just 158,406 young black men. In the same year, 52.9 percent of the people stopped and frisked were black, 33.7 percent were Latino, and only 9.3 percent were white. The stop and frisk racial landscape didn’t change much in 2014: 54 percent of those who were stopped and frisked were black, 27 percent were Latinos, and 12 percent were white. African Americans are also stopped more frequently when driving or entering the country.

Critics of the drug policy worry that black Americans are also more likely to be arrested. The rate of arrests for black Americans is 2.5 times higher than white Americans. At the same time, even though the black and white population use marijuana at roughly the same rates, black Americans are four times more likely to be arrested for drug offenses. Watch the video below to learn more about racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests.

Finally, black users are more often convicted and incarcerated for drug felonies. In 2009, 50.5 percent of the state prisoners convicted on drug offenses were African Americans, 17 percent were Latinos, and 30.1 percent were whites. Black men and women were also sent to prison on drug charges at 11.8 and 4.8 times the rate of their white counterparts, respectively.

Critics of our current polices point out that as a result of such discriminatory treatment, black Americans enter the prison system at a higher rate, stay there longer, and are more likely to go back there again. The harsh penal sanctions for drug offenses result in mass incarceration of individuals of color. Black Americans convicted of drug offenses constitute 53.3 percent of those admitted to state prisons. Watch the video below to learn more about mass incarceration in the United States.

Who thinks the current drug laws aren’t discriminatory?

There is another point of view that claims that the notion of differential treatment according to race is non-existent. Those who subscribe to that school of thought argue that African Americans simply commit more drug-related offenses. This argument posits that the police and criminal justice system are not biased toward minorities. It further asserts that the reason why disproportionately more black Americans end up in the criminal justice system has to do with relative crime rates, not racial bias. Some conservative voices hold the same view, citing that African Americans simply commit more crimes, especially those involving drugs. The video below shows Bill O’Reilly, a FOX News commentator, speaking in support of this point of view.

So, is U.S. Drug Policy a Civil Rights Issue?

What is a “Civil Rights Issue”?

Civil rights are centered on the notion of discrimination. A civil rights issue arises when an individual or group has been discriminated against on the basis of its race, sex, religion, age, physical limitation, or orientation. Civil rights issues are often discussed in the realm of employment or housing discrimination. Such spheres can be considered traditional civil rights battlegrounds.

The criminal justice system has been long overlooked when discussing civil rights violations. Only relatively recently did the ACLU and other civil and human rights groups begin to acknowledge that sentencing practices for drug offenses and the overall treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system is a civil rights issue.

How does the U.S. Drug Policy relate to Civil Rights?

Those who argue that the U.S. Drug Policy is a civil rights issue focus on the particular emphasis in drug laws that are not equal in their intent or enforcement. The majority of drug crimes are not committed by minorities, but the prison system is disproportionally filled with African Americans and Latinos.

The public has long associated poor communities of color with drugs and crime, a notion that was long perpetuated by the media. More minority arrests and convictions for drug offenses result in the belief that certain parts of the population use more drugs and commit more crime. It opens up a discussion on racial dynamics in American society and the impact of structural racism.

In this realm, many argue that the current drug policy can be considered a civil rights issue as it discriminates against communities of color in the criminal justice system by disproportionately targeting open drug markets in poor neighborhoods and failing to recognize the same dynamics in more affluent areas.

Conclusion

The current drug policy of the United States Government is centered on tough sanctions and long sentencing practices. It often ignores the fact that drug use is a public heath issue, locking up individuals for simple possession of certain drugs. At the same time, the enforcement of the current drug laws is disproportionately focused on communities of color, resulting in the mass incarceration of minorities. Thus, numerous civil and human rights groups consider U.S. drug policy a civil rights issue. But not everybody supports this point of view. The counter argument refuses a civil rights interpretation of the issue, claiming that minorities simply commit more drug-related offenses. No matter who is right or wrong, the current drug policy needs serious fixing.

Resources

Primary

The White House: Civil Rights

Additional

New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration at the Age of Colorblindness

Foreign Policy in Focus: U.S. Drug Policy

Huffington Post: More Nails in the Drug War Coffin: Top Stories of 2014

Sentencing Project: Incarcerated Parents and their Children

Human Rights Watch: Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report. Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990-2006.

NYCLU: Stop and Frisk Data

ACLU: Driving While Black: Racial Profiling On Our Nation’s Highways

ACLU: Border Patrol Stops

Anti-Defamation League: Privilege, Discrimination, and Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

Sentencing Project: Drug Policy

Human Rights Watch: Race and Drugs

New Century Foundation: The Color of Crime. Race, Crime and Justice in America

Center For Constitutional Rights: Floyd, et al, v. City of New York, et al.

The New York Times: An Editorial Series on Marijuana Legalization

Huffington Post: Obama: Marijuana No More Dangerous Than Alcohol

Legal Information Institute: Equal Protection

Leadership Conference: Justice On Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System

NYCLU Briefing 2011: Stop and Frisk

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drug Policy: Civil Rights Issue or Fair Enforcement? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, Saks Fifth Avenue took a page from the book of fellow upscale department store Barneys New York and attempted to justify its discriminative policies. But instead of partaking in racist actions against customers, Saks is discriminating against a transgender employee.

Former employee Leyth O. Jamal filed a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against a Texas Saks, claiming she was fired for being transgender. So instead of owning up to its mistakes and offering an apology, Saks tried to find a loophole to justify its actions. The company claimed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include trans* people. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has concluded that Title VII could qualify for discrimination “based on sex” in the past. And if that’s not convincing enough for you, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department have also ruled that Title VII includes people of any trans* identity.

While these laws should definitely be properly amended to explicitly mention people on the trans* spectrum, that doesn’t get Saks off the hook. The company also insisted on using male pronouns to identify Jamal throughout its filings, even adding a “[sic]” every time it quoted Jamal referring to herself as female. Just as Leelah Alcorn’s parents continued to refer to her as male in their statements, referring to a person by anything other that the gender that he or she has chosen is ignorant and just plain disrespectful.

It is absolutely unacceptable for Saks to try to get away with such putrid behavior when the fashion industry is peppered with people who identify all across the LGBTQ spectrum. It shouldn’t be okay In any industry to mistreat trans* people, but it breaks my heart to hear that this is still happening in the progressive industry that I love. Both Saks and the government need to update their perspectives and become more inclusive of both trans* and LGBTQ people, so no one has to fall victim to discrimination, self-harm, and violence like Jamal, Alcorn, and Kimy Hartman all did.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saks Defends Discrimination Against Transgender Employee appeared first on Law Street.

In our increasingly diverse society, one debate that’s pretty common to hear floating around is about “affirmative action.” Particularly in regards to college admissions, both proponents and critics of the programs have a lot to say.  Read on to learn about the history of affirmative action policies, and the arguments for and against them.

What is Affirmative Action?

Affirmative action is defined as “a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.”  AA has existed since the Civil Rights Movement. It began with President John F. Kennedy’s passage of Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This essentially mandated that anyone hired by the federal government could not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.

According to current federal AA law, schools giving race-based admissions must meet the strict scrutiny rule. This rule was recently reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2013 Fisher v. University of Texas. If race is used in college application admissions, then the school (or the government if it is a state school) bears the legal burden of demonstrating that it was done because it is “closely related to a compelling government interest” and “narrowly tailored” to meet that interest.  The school must also demonstrate that race-neutral alternatives are not viable in that case.

The debate over AA was also invigorated in 2014, with the Supreme Court Decision Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. The state of Michigan had banned AA policies at their universities. The court decided that Michigan’s ban of the policies did not violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the Schuette decision. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor stated:

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.

However, AA policies are not consistent state-by-state, and the Schuette case is just another example of the flexibility that states are allowed to take with their policies.

Since JFK’s executive order, AA policies have been modified and refined by the legislature and the courts.  In fact, many sociologists and other experts have reach opposing conclusions about the efficacy of AA on redressing the effects of historical discrimination.  This has led to AA becoming a source of significant political controversy.  AA has been both implemented and enforced at both the federal and the state levels.  Individual states can have vastly different AA policies from the federal government and from each other.  AA is primarily implemented through efforts to “improve the employment and educational opportunities of women and members of minority groups through preferential treatment in job hiring, college admissions, the awarding of government contracts, and the allocation of other social benefits.”

What’s the argument to get rid of Affirmative Action?

Proponents of repealing AA argue that the policy of considering the race of potential beneficiaries disproportionately benefits upper and middle class racial minorities at the expense of poor Caucasians.  Since a larger proportion of minorities are poor than Caucasians, class-based AA would help poor racial minorities more than it would help poor Caucasians. AA can disproportionately harm certain minority groups while benefiting others. For example, Asian Americans have more difficulty getting into top private universities than African Americans, Latino Americans, and Caucasians.  Affirmative Action is reverse-discrimination and it requires the same discrimination that it is supposed to prevent, therefore it is counterproductive. In many cases, it can require less qualified or unqualified applicants to be accepted into positions at the expense of qualified applicants resulting in their eventual failure.

What’s the argument to keep Affirmative Action policies in place?

Opponents of repealing AA argue that ensuring equality of opportunity regardless of one’s background creates the best possible social, cultural and economic future for the people of the United States.  Equality is also most conducive to the strength of the U.S. national defense. Failing to provide such equality would be contrary to the principles that led to the founding of the United States. Some argue that AA should be class-based only.  However, racial minorities of all socioeconomic classes are vulnerable to discrimination and many minorities in all classes become victims of discrimination.  Therefore, in order to be effective AA must be race based as well. Studies have shown that people with “black sounding” names are less likely to be contacted for job interviews than people with “white sounding names. AA has contributed to the creation to the “black middle class” as well.  Finally, studies have shown that minority students are more likely to experience hostility and negative treatment in states that ban AA than in states that utilize it.

Conclusion

Affirmative action policies are a common cause of debate, especially when it comes to our public universities. While they certainly have proved their benefits, there are also valid concerns about the ethical benefits and detractors of the policies.

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.

Additional

Stanford Magazine: The Case Against Affirmative Action

American Prospect: Class-Based Affirmative Action Is Not the Answer

Annenberg Media Center: Fisher v. UT Austin: Why Affirmative Action Should Be Eliminated

Pantagraph: Affirmative Action Should Be Eliminated

Alternet: 10 Reasons Affirmative Action Still Matters Today

TIME: Why We Still Need Affirmative Action

New Yorker: Why America Still Needs Affirmative Action

Real Clear Politics: Good News About Affirmative Action’s Future

Cornell University Law School: Affirmative Action

About News: The Affirmative Action Debate: Five Concerns

About News: Key Events in Affirmative Action’s History

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Affirmative Action

Newsweek: Why We Still Need Affirmative Action

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Affirmative Action Laws: A History of Political Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

Good news for those who are both gay and have Irish pride: next year, New York City will allow LGBT groups to march in the St. Patricks Day parade with their own banners. Previously, there had been a ban on allowing gay groups to join in the famous event, which is the biggest in the world. The ban wasn’t specifically on LGBT people — they were allowed to march as long they were with other groups and weren’t carrying any sort of banners marking them as gay — but this was still clearly discriminatory.

The ban on gay groups marching in the parade was causing a lot of problems for the organizers — liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio did not want to march as long as the ban was in place, and Guinness refused to sponsor. Heineken withdrew its support as well. Other businesses have also threatened to take away their support if action was not taken.

Somewhat surprisingly, the decision was actually met without protest from many Catholics. In recent years, the Catholic Church has begun embracing LGBT people as individuals, while still standing against the possibility of gay marriage on an institutional level. The allowance of gay groups at the parade is another example of that shift. As the always delightful Stephen Colbert points out, everyone’s pretty much on board with the new rule:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan will actually be the grand marshal for next year’s parade, and he’s given his full support to the change in policy, stating:

My predecessors and I have always left decisions on who would march to the organizers of the individual parades. As I do each year, I look forward to celebrating Mass in honor of Saint Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland, and the Patron Saint of this Archdiocese, to begin the feast, and pray that the parade would continue to be a source of unity for all of us.

The decision was mostly welcomed by the gay community. It was called a good small step by the Staten Island LGBT Community Center, whose communications manager Emilie Tippens said she hoped for a ripple effect to emerge in other circumstances where LGBT people face discrimination. However, the move did receive some ire from members of the LGBT community. Gay leaders claim that the parade rules were changed not because the organizers actually realized the error of their ways, but because they were forced to by financial and publicity concerns. As a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, Fed Sainz, explained:

In one of the world’s most diverse and inclusive cities, not to allow gay people to march was becoming an anachronistic decision that they could no longer reasonably justify.

While that may be true, it is still a good thing that gay groups will be allowed to march in the parade. The parade is a big draw, and a massive celebration, and for anyone to be restricted is truly a disservice.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DonkeyHotey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade to Finally Include LGBT Groups appeared first on Law Street.

A young woman in Houston, TX, claims that she was just fired for being pregnant. The woman, who worked as a case manager for the personal injury law firm Wayne Wright, reportedly told her employers that she was pregnant and would be requiring maternity leave. She claims that in response, the firm told her that they could not accommodate that request and that she would have to “choose her last day on the job.” Her job has since been terminated.

I could pretend that this is a crazy isolated incident, but I think we all know better than that. The United States takes pretty bad care of its expecting mothers–we are one of just a few countries that does not require paid maternity leave. In case you were curious, the only other nations that do not offer those benefits are Oman and Papua New Guinea.

When it comes to laws preventing employers from firing their employees because they’re pregnant, the United States does have the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law is supposed to prevent companies from discriminating against women for being pregnant, past pregnancies, or the possibility of future pregnancies. However, the law is a bit sparse, and has some serious loopholes. According to the law, companies must give women 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical reasons such as pregnancy and childbirth. However, that law only officially applies to companies with at least 50 employees, and the woman applying for the leave must have worked for the company for at least 12 months. Other parts of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act only apply if the company has more than 15 employees. Experts’ estimates about how many employees are actually eligible for 12 weeks of unpaid leave range from 20 percent to 59 percent.

This is obviously a very simplistic overview of the legal protections offered by the government to pregnant women–there are other state and local laws in place that provide some benefits. However, those laws are inconsistent and often inadequate. In general, the United States does a pretty miserable job of helping pregnant women keep their jobs.

The woman in Houston who is now suing is notable because if she’s telling the truth, the discrimination waged against her was of a very overt nature. Oftentimes, discrimination against pregnant women, or women who have the potential to become pregnant, is considerably more subtle. Sometimes women not hired or promoted because of they may become pregnant and require some sort of leave. Here’s an example: a husband and wife, both teachers, interviewed for very similar jobs. They both have similar work experience, although the wife also had a master’s degree. She was asked many questions about her personal life, including whether or not she’s planning on getting pregnant. The husband was not asked whether or not he plans to become a father–or really anything about his personal life in general. In a Reddit post about her experience, the aforementioned woman stated:

I was asked ‘Do you have children yet?’ I was taken aback so I just ended up saying ‘Nope, just cats.’ I’m child-free but I knew better than to state that in an interview for a teaching position. I was still nervous and in ‘interview mode’ so it didn’t really hit me until after how shitty it was to be asked that question.

Not only is that question blatantly illegal–Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents such inquiries–I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many men asked about their familial intentions in a job interview.

In some cases, the discrimination against young female employees is even less subtle. A few weeks ago, a web developer from Toronto named Lyndsay Kirkham was sitting next to a bunch of IBM executives out to a business lunch. According to her, they went on a bit of a rant about how they don’t hire young women because “they are just going to get themselves pregnant again and again and again.”

It’s also important to note that discrimination against pregnant women hits low-income families particularly hard. Women who work in jobs that require some degree of manual labor–such as retail, or food service, are often not provided the accommodations they need while pregnant. This may even force pregnant women to take unpaid leave, or quit their jobs.

Whether backhanded or overt, the discrimination in this country against pregnant and potentially pregnant women is real. This case in Houston is just one of countless examples, because the laws we have in place simply aren’t enough. Until the United States improves the ways in which it treats pregnant women, what happened at that Houston law firm will happen again and again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ed Yourdon via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It Happens Every Day: Pregnant Woman Fired for Being Pregnant appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly six years of legal battles, Teresa Wagner was just granted a new trial against the University of Iowa College of Law. Wagner alleges she was looked over for a promotion because of her political beliefs. She first sued then Iowa Law Dean Carolyn Jones in 2009. She insisted that she was not considered fairly for a legal writing position at the law school due to the fact that she is a conservative, an open advocate of anti-abortion efforts, and a supporter of the nation’s largest pro-life organization, the National Right to Life Committee.

The evidence provided by Wagner’s attorney featured a statement by the Associate Dean, Jonathan C. Carlson, to former Dean Jones. Carlson stated, “frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it.)”

Of course, it’s a horrible thought that a prospective employee was discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, skin color, or any other reason. As a fervent pro-choice advocate myself, I must say I’d be appalled I was looked over for a job because of my political views. It’s absolutely Wagner’s right to be considered based on merit, and merit alone. In addition to the comment from Carlson, the video of Wagner’s interview with the faculty was suspiciously erased shortly after their decision not to hire her. Jones, however, contended that Wagner was passed over because she had “preformed miserably in a presentation.”

Wagner’s case seemed to be doomed from the onset. Her original lawsuit against Jones, first filed in 2009, was met with indecision from the jury. While they agreed that Jones was clear of the political discrimination charge, the jurors admitted they could not decide if Wagner’s equal protection rights had been breached. Therefore, the judge ruled the second count a mistrial, but only after reassembling and questioning the jurors thoroughly. An appeals court review decided that the reassembly was considered improper questioning by the judge, seeing as the jurors had had the opportunity to be influenced during the short break through high speed technology like smart phones. As a result, Wagner will now have a new trial.

This technical back-and-forth seems to have clouded the real issue at the core of Wagner’s case. This case highlights the huge disparity in political representation among law school faculty. At the time of Wagner’s application for the legal writing job there was just one registered Republican on an Iowa Law faculty of about 50. This trend doesn’t seem to be specific to the University of Iowa. In 2005, the Georgetown Law Journal actually released a report claiming that “81 percent [of law school professors] gave wholly or mostly to Democrats, while 15 percent gave wholly or mostly to Republicans.” For some reason, law schools seem to favor liberal professors, or at the very least attract them. But why has this trend been able to fly under the radar, despite research on the issue? Institutions of higher learning, including the University of Iowa, have entire departments dedicated to “diversity,” but in what capacity? It seems to me that they have allowed themselves to be restricted by a narrow definition of racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity. Although I agree that these things are vital to incorporate in an education, what about diversity of thought?

Fortunately for employment-seeking conservative law profs, there are advocates speaking out on their behalf, and raising awareness about the lack of right-leaning voices in legal academia. Organizations, such as the Federalist Society, help combat the, “orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society” that they believe is dominating the legal profession and higher education. One of the ways it endeavors to shorten the gap is through its extensive network of conservative and libertarian intellectuals in the legal community.

An alternative possible solution could be a sort of affirmative action focusing on political affiliations. But as with the original concept of racial affirmative action, this idea invites the possibility that quotas eventually takes precedence over merit, effectively reversing the effects the law would seek to reform. Though this case brought up the lack of political diversity among law school faculty, this solution seems less than viable. Most can agree that reform is needed, but not to the point that courts have more of a say in the qualification of certain applicants than experienced university administration. Hiring processes need to be made more transparent while also retaining fair policies.

Like any hot-button political issue, there’s no easy solution. Differing views are, in academia, usually a good thing. Our nation’s law students have the right to be able to be exposed to viewpoints different than their own, debate the issues, and if needed, disagree with their instructors. Regardless of the outcome of Wagner’s new trial, I’m glad that this case has ignited a conversation about ideological diversity in legal education.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dave Jones-one of many via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iowa Law Legal Battle Sheds Light on Academic Diversity appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

“Gay really is the new black,” proclaimed Daily News columnist John McWhorter in a recent article. John McWhorter is über insightful and I always enjoy watching him on Melissa Harris-Perry, but as Rosa Parks so eloquently said, “No.” No, gay is not the new black.

Courtesy of the Daily Californian

America’s legacy of racism is vastly different from its history of sexual-orientation discrimination and homophobia. The struggle for racial equality is also inapposite to the gay rights movement. The twenty-first century world in which the gay rights movement has so rapidly progressed has itself become a rapid place. Instant gratification is no longer instant enough. “Attention span” has become a sort of a misnomer, suggesting that our attention lasts long enough to actually span. Once upon a time, the adult attention span was somewhere around twelve minutes; that is, the average adult could stay focused on a task for twelve minutes without becoming distracted. Today, however, it’s dropped to five minutes. Some reports even claim that the average attention span on the Internet is two and a half seconds.

Courtesy of David Goehring via Flickr

That’s just ridic. Alas, these are the times in which we’re living. This wasn’t always the case.

Change used to happen at a snail’s pace and the civil rights movement reflects as much. Understanding then that “the arc of the moral universe is long but bends toward justice,” as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, civil rights lawyers like Thurgood Marshall employed a strategy of chipping away at Plessy v. Ferguson’s wall of segregation. They slowly and methodically attacked the system piece by piece. After more than fifty years, the chipping-away strategy culminated with the Brown v. Board of Education cases in 1954 and 1955, reducing the wall of segregation to a pile of rubble. The gay rights movement on the other hand has bulldozed its way toward some semblance of equality. It was just the mid-1980s when the Supreme Court gave us Bowers v. Hardwick — when it upheld the constitutionality of a state sodomy law that criminalized private, consensual oral and anal sex between two gay men.

In Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 the Court overruled its decision in Bowers. And in the ten or so short years since Lawrence, discriminatory laws across the country have fallen at a neck-breaking pace. Now, I’d probably be hard-pressed to find many people who’ve even heard of Bowers v. Hardwick.

I’ll concede, the reasons the LGBTQ community has accomplished so much so fast are far more complex than I’ve intimated. Somewhere in the mix of reasons is necessarily that the world itself is a faster place today. But who the hell has the time or attention span to delve into all those complexities? Maybe I do? After all, I did spend oodles of time before and during law school thinking about all this stuff. So, after much thought and deliberation about this topic, I’ve come to the conclusion t–

What were we talking about again?

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [Andy Smith via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gay is NOT the New Black appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, gay and bisexual men participated in the second annual National Gay Blood Drive. The drive’s goal was to call attention to the FDA’s lifetime blood donor deferral for all men who have had sex with another man, in place since 1977. Despite the national attention that it received, the first gay blood drive last summer did little to sway the FDA and the ban remained. Organizations such as the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks have all spoken out in support of easing blood donor restrictions. They say that they all, “believe the current lifetime deferral for men who have had sex with other men should be modified and that donor deferral criteria should be made comparable with criteria for other behaviors that pose an increased risk for transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections.”

But let’s back up a bit here–why is there a restriction preventing gay men from donating blood in the first place? About three decades ago, when the AIDS crisis was in full swing, there was panic about how the HIV virus was transmitted. The restriction was put in place to prevent gay men from transmitting HIV through blood donations. But the times, and our scientific knowledge, have changed. We have had the ability to perform blood tests for nearly 30 years now, and it’s been nearly that long since we’ve had a single case of HIV via blood transfusion. The laws are also a relic of a time when it was thought that HIV was an exclusively homosexual disease–it’s since been proven that it can be passed on to anyone of any sexual orientation. That’s exactly why every sample is tested for many things, including HIV, after it is donated.

Ryan James Yezak, the drive’s organizer, wrote a passionate plea for lifting the ban this week on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign. He explained how three years ago, he wanted to go with his boss to give blood after a natural disaster. In his plea, he explained:

While I was healthy as could be, I could not donate due to the fact that I was gay. I had to explain the situation to everyone in my department. For the first time in my life, I felt like I was being treated differently solely on the basis of my sexual orientation – it felt alienating, it felt wrong, but above all – it felt unnecessary.

Yezak could not be more correct–it is unnecessary. A simple blood test and waiting period eliminates the need to categorize individual donors as a risk. The exclusion of gay and bisexual men from donating blood only propagates a stigma against which gay rights activists have spent the past 30 years fighting.

In fact, the only thing that this ban really does is cut down the number of potential blood donors, which is not something we should be doing. Blood shortages have been a major issue in the United States over the past several years.  According to the American Red Cross, more than 41,000 blood donations are needed every single day. In times of catastrophes and in the summer months when schools are no longer holding blood drives, there are major shortages of blood due to the lack of donors. ABC News reported that last year that the United States faced one of the worst shortages the Red Cross has ever seen. As Yezak explained, “to continue to exclude people despite the entirely reasonable arguments of the organizations that supply blood themselves is both discriminatory to them and harmful to everybody.” He said, “someone needs a blood donation every two seconds in the U.S., and you never know when that someone is going to be you.”

The bottom line is, we should not be turning away anyone’s blood. So long as it has been tested, there is no reason that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should be banned from donating. Hopefully the second annual National Gay Blood drive will prompt the FDA to lift this outdated and discriminatory ban.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt Buck via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The National Gay Blood Drive: A Call for Change appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that many Americans feel there are too many lawsuits in this country. If you’ve ever been selected for jury duty, then you know that one of the most common questions asked before sitting on a civil case is whether or not people sue too often. The answer back to the attorney is often “yes,” not just because the panelist is seeking to avoid jury service, but because that’s the view espoused by many when reflecting on the American zeitgeist.

This sentiment is caused, or at least reinforced, by the media’s reporting of lawsuits. The headlines that make the largest waves are often based on huge, seven-digit verdicts. Laura Beth Nielsen and Aaron Beim alluded to this correlation in a recent paper claiming the courts are not as favorable to plaintiffs as the media often portrays, yet the media’s reports are what the public absorbs. Neilsen and Beim’s chief example is a Boston Globe report of an MBTA worker who was awarded a $5.5 million discrimination verdict. The verdict was later reduced by 80 percent on remittitur, an important detail the Globe did not feature as prominently as the original verdict. It seems that cases alleging discrimination in the workplace carry a stigma with the public and media.

Just as the figures of a verdict can be lost on the average American, so too can the merits of the underlying discrimination case. In 2009, former Los Angeles Clippers executive Elgin Baylor sued team owner Donald Sterling alleging racial discrimination. A jury of 12 unanimously rejected Baylor’s suit, and many called the hall of famer’s action frivolous.

Cases alleging tales of sexual discrimination are no different. This year alone, cheerleaders from three different NFL teams have sued their employers, often alleging sexual harassment among a variety of different wage claims. Knee-jerk reactions to such suits are often negative, as evidenced in the comments section of ESPN articles covering the matter.

A closer look at both situations may evoke a more tolerant response. Since his lawsuit, Elgin Baylor’s former employer has allegedly been caught on tape making racist comments against African Americans, and some former Clippers aren’t surprised by his discriminatory tendencies. Details have also emerged in the cheerleading case of the Buffalo Jills, whose employer allegedly instructed them on how to control their menstrual cycles and how to wash their “intimate areas.”

In sum, it’s never a bad idea to reserve judgment on a lawsuit that appears in the news or on TV, even one alleging discrimination. In fact, suits alleging workplace discrimination often already have safeguards in place against frivolous litigation, like the EEOC’s Right-To-Sue-Letter. But even absent an EEOC investigation, plaintiffs should be afforded a blank slate. Few things in this country are as ubiquitously opposed as prejudice and discrimination. Those who decide to sacrifice time, money, and privacy to personally combat these evils in a public court should be heard with an open mind.

____

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [BuffaloProCheer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Rethinking Discrimination Suits in Light of Buffalo Jills, Donald Sterling appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Eric Holder shined a spotlight on state voting laws this week when he spoke out against voting bans for felons. The laws vary across states, with the harshest in Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia where felons are banned from voting for life, with the exception of individual permissions granted by the governor. Other states require ex-convicts to abide by a waiting period prior to regaining the vote, and others still have long and complicated re-registration procedures. To prove the severity of these laws, Holder pointed to Florida where anti-felon suffrage regulations ban 10 percent of the citizens from voting.

While a significant portion of the country is barred from voting, even after they finish their time in prison, these laws also disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans encompass a third of the approximately 5.8 million Americans who are barred from exercising their voting rights. Holder emphasized the large number of minorities affected by these restrictive laws, stating that they are remnants of the discriminatory policies enacted after the Civil War in order to keep minorities from going to the polls. And unfortunately their efforts were successful: 1 in 13 African-Americans are disenfranchised due to anti-felon voting bans.

Due to these, and other, restrictive policies, any attempt to protect minority voting rights is important, especially after key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were declared unconstitutional in a 2013 Supreme Court Ruling. The decision deemed Section 4 unconstitutional, which determined states with histories of voting discrimination would have to submit any changes to their voting laws to be pre-approved by the Attorney General. Without the coverage formula, states are able to pass discriminatory voting laws and the federal government cannot prevent the laws from going into effect.

In this context, the Voting Rights Act’s power is minimized, and any legislation that could help restore some minority voting rights would be welcome. Senator Rand Paul is currently drafting a bill that, if passed by Congress, would give many felons the right to vote in federal elections. However, Paul’s bill still contains restrictions: the proposed legislation restores the vote specifically to non-violent felons, which is a compromise with other legislators who are hesitant to restore these rights in the first place.

Holder also noted that the laws preventing ex-convicts from voting only enhances the stereotype and social stigma surrounding felons. Laws affecting felons, such as these restrictive voting ban, increase the feeling of separation from the rest of the community and increase the likelihood that felons will commit further crimes. Treating ex-convicts as second-class citizens is neither the proper nor the most successful way to reintegrate them into their communities.

These laws teach others that there are no second chances in American justice: once a convict, always a convict. Some may think that this is a good message to send, and that such laws could dissuade citizens from committing crimes in the first place. However, this philosophy mistakenly precludes the possibility that once felons finish their time, they could serve some benefit to the community. If societal attitudes continue to influence felons to go back to jail, states miss out on the potential for these people’s efforts to contribute to the workforce and other communal needs. By getting rid of some of the restrictive laws on felons after they return to normal life, they can better return as contributing citizens.

While Mr. Holder has no authority to enact changes to the laws himself, congressmen and state legislatures should listen up.

[Washington Post] [New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [The Hill] [Politico]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Holder Speaks Out Against Felon Voting Ban appeared first on Law Street.

My most recent assignment at my current think-tank internship was to write a report on the 2008 book,The Execution of Willie Francis: Race, Murder, and the Search for Justice in the American South. In it, journalist Gilbert King told the story of Willie Francis, an African-American teenager who was convicted of the murder of a Caucasian man in the small Louisiana town of St. Martinville and survived a botched execution attempt in 1946. The book recounts the dark history of race relations in southern Louisiana, the murky circumstances surrounding the murder of popular local pharmacist Andrew Thomas, and the gross travesty of justice that was Willie Francis’ trial (particularly his lawyers’ refusal to provide him with any real defense). After Francis was scheduled for a second date with the electric chair, an idealistic local Cajun lawyer and a crusading Creole civil rights attorney intervened to try to save him. In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed his sentence, and the boy was finally put to death in 1947.

Frankly—and sadly—I found the most sensationally sordid aspects of the Willie Francis tragedy, namely the ugly racism and nauseatingly biased criminal justice system of mid-twentieth century America, to be old time religion. As an African descendant myself, I’ve been spurred by both upbringing and personal interest to familiarize myself with Black history in the United States and worldwide. Nothing about Francis’ treatment at the hands of the courts surprised me. As a student of the law, however, I was most struck by the middle section of the book, which detailed the backgrounds and deliberations of the Supreme Court Justices who ultimately put Willie Francis back on the path to his demise. What really seized my attention was the lamentable fact that when Willie’s case—Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber—reached the Court, the nation’s highest tribunal had not yet seen fit to “incorporate” the fundamental constitutional freedoms entrenched in the Bill of Rights against state and governments.

The law graduates among you will remember “incorporation” as the process by which courts have ruled that portions of the Bill of Rights constrain the states as well as the federal government. If this development has been a “process” rather than an obvious tenet of American constitutional law from the beginning, it is because the Framers drafted the Constitution with a view to limiting the power of the federal government, not the states. (Mind you, the Framers didn’t make this especially clear in the text of the Bill of Rights. Of all the pre-Civil War individual-rights Amendments, only the First explicitly targets Congress.) Yet the bloodshed of the Civil War and the intransigence of the former Confederate states in resisting equality for the freed slaves revealed the need for limits to the state governments’ powers as well.

One might think that the Fourteenth Amendment’s ringing declaration that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” would have addressed this problem adequately. Alas, one would be mistaken. The Supreme Court’s 1873 decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases held that the above-mentioned Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to the rights of U.S. citizenship and not of citizenship in particular states. This effectively foreclosed the use of the Clause to prevent state and local governments from riding roughshod over fundamental individual constitutional rights, right up to the present day. (Notably, Justice Hugo Black argued in 1947’s Adamson v. California that since the Slaughtehouse Cases addressed the unenumerated right to economic liberty, the cause of incorporating textually enumerated rights through the P-or-I Clause actually could have survived Slaughterhouse.) Although, as Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has written, “Virtually no serious modern scholar—left, right, and center—thinks that [Slaughter-House] is a plausible reading of the [Fourteenth] Amendment,” the Supreme Court has never mustered the gumption to overturn this misbegotten precedent.

Some may dismiss this nicety as negligible, especially since the Supreme Court did eventually get around to incorporating most of the Bill of Rights through other, due process-based means. The story of Willie Francis suggests otherwise. As author Gilbert King writes, “Not once, not twice, but many times, the U.S. Supreme Court had held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to states. Thus, most of the rights in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, rights citizens decades later would take for granted, simply did not exist for litigants in a case originating at the state level—cases like Willlie’s. In other words, one’s right not to be tried twice for the same crime, for instance, could only be invoked if one was being tried in a federal court.”

So when Willie Francis’ lawyers prepared to argue his case before the Supreme Court, they had to face the daunting prospect of urging the Court to reconsider and overturn its previous rulings—rarely a promising strategy. The legal deck, then, was heavily stacked against the hapless youth from the beginning. Had the Court not stood the Fourteenth Amendment on its head a mere five years after its ratification—even in the face of statements from Congressman John Bingham, its principal framer, to the effect that it did incorporate the first eight Amendments to the states—Willie might have stood a real chance. Yet thanks to the obstinacy of the Slaughterhouse Court and the cravenness of succeeding generations of Justices, Willie Francis and countless others like him were subjected to grotesque miscarriages of due process—and suffered the ultimate injustice as a result.

When I was still but a lowly law student, I diligently read the online evaluation feedback for every course I contemplated taking before enrolling in it. I remember reading one evaluation from a student who opined that all constitutional law courses should be elective. The Execution of Willie Francis has reminded me why I have always held such attitudes in the utmost contempt—and why I carry a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution with me in my bag daily. No matter what field of legal practice one wishes to take up, constitutional issues—including seemingly arcane matters of constitutional interpretation—affect all of us as citizens of a democratic society. It’s not only a matter of right and wrong, or of justice and injustice; sometimes it’s a matter of life and death.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Nesnad via Wikipedia]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Constitutional Interpretation Matters appeared first on Law Street.

“Can’t a young [    ] get money anymore?”

Prophetic words indeed from the twenty-first century’s most evocative and provocative lyricist – Kanye West – in case there is anyone out there who doesn’t recognize the quote. A very serious question indeed in a modern world where many of us, Black and non-Black, define our successes based on our material possessions. But the deeper meaning resonates with every Black person who has heard  the news coming from New York relating to one of the preeminent department stores in the country: Barneys New York. Turns out this lovely little mom-and-pop luxury store, which prides itself on drawing fashionistas the world over, had a little problem with some of their darker shoppers.

The story goes, a male shopper by the name of Trayon Christian, 19 of Queens, felt the inexorable urge to splurge on a designer belt, because, ya know, a guy’s gotta treat himself every now and then. So, with his hard-earned money, about $349 of it, Mr. Christian bought a Ferragamo belt. He bought the belt with his debit card, for which he showed identification, and then happily left the store. Upon exiting, it seems two plain-clothes cops handcuffed him and detained him for two hours. The officers apparently could not possibly comprehend how someone his age could buy a belt so expensive. The card had to be stolen. Mr. Christian had to be a thief, because, ya know, young Black people having money just doesn’t add up.

I wonder if the exchange went like this:

Officers: “Excuse me sir, can I ask you a few questions?”

Christian: “Umm, what do you want?”

Officers: “Did you just buy a belt from Barneys?”

Christian: “Yes, I can’t imagine how you’d know that, but why does it. . .”

Officers: “We’ll ask the questions here! I think we’re gonna have to take you in.”

Christian: “Why, I have a receipt?”

Officers: “Silly kid, receipts don’t mean anything when you’re Black and buy things we can’t imagine someone your age and race should buy.”

:: AND SCENE ::

Now, I’ll begin by saying I totally made that up and have no proof whatsoever that that happened. In that way, I am just like the officers who detained Trayon. Obviously they suspected he had stolen the debit card or something of the sort, and they had naturally no proof whatsoever that that was the case. But who needs facts, anyway?

But it didn’t stop there. Turns out another incident happened at Barneys, where apparently Black is the new guilty. Kayla Phillips of Brooklyn, 21, was confronted by officers at a subway station. Her charge: buying a $2,500 Celine purse. Again, I get all my advice on high fashion from Kanye, and he’s the one who told me when you have on the Zara pant and a girl walks in with the Celine version you feel like shit. Well, Kayla didn’t want to feel like shit. So Kayla, with her hard-earned tax refund, bought herself a designer purse, because that frantic purse dig for her keys that pisses off her boyfriend when it’s cold outside and they’re just trying to get to the car because they are already late . . . – I digress – just isn’t the same unless the purse is Celine.

These two intrepid fashionistas were simply trying to buy nice things. All too often the allure of keeping up with the Joneses plagues minority communities. Is it some underlying desire for conformity? Is it some thirst to bedazzle oneself in the trappings of the majority culture? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Hell yes. But I am more concerned about what this says about our culture.

It goes like this: Black people were brought here as slaves. [Stop me if this sounds unfamiliar at all.] We were emancipated. We essentially languished for 100 years despite like five Constitutional Amendments and men like Dubois, Washington, Garvey, and King. We got some rights: voting, etc. Then we began to enter the middle class. We begin to live how the other half lived for nearly the entire tenure of our race on the North American continent. We began to believe in our hearts that the color of our skin didn’t matter. Then we sorta lost some voting rights. [Still wondering how the Supreme Court did that.] When it came to material things, the only thing we thought mattered was the color of our money. We were wrong. Turns out all that matters is someone in a position of power and his perception of you. Doesn’t matter if your debit card has your name on it and you showed identification. Merely buying something someone else thinks you ought not, or have no reason to buy, is apparently all it takes to stir up enough suspicion to be arrested.

Therein lies the hard truth of modern America. I have often in my time in Washington, D.C. literally stood in the middle of the street with money in my hand hoping to hail a cab. And time and again I have been passed over for the White couple on date night. Or the drunk frat boys. Greater than the inconvenience of just having to take the Metro is the shame associated with someone whom you don’t even know perceiving something negative about you based on no actions of your own.

I have never been followed in a store. In many ways, what happened to these two people is even worse. No one followed them expecting them to shoplift. They waited until after they had purchased their items to imbue them with the suspicion of illegality. So legally entering a store, legally shopping, and legally purchasing something isn’t enough to dispel suspicion? That begs the question, what the hell will?

At this very moment I am looking at my designer, leather jogging pants and wondering when the Feds will come knocking. I guess I could run, but you folks have no idea how impractical it is to actually do physical activity in leather jogging pants.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Alicia Griffin via Flickr]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thursdays at Barneys appeared first on Law Street.

Happy November, folks! Has everyone ditched their spooky, jack-o-lantern-themed front door decorations for some good, old-fashioned hand turkeys? Yes? AWESOME.

Feels good to start fresh, am I right? Post-Halloween, fall takes on a whole new aura.

And the Senate seems to agree! They’re not swapping out their seasonal front door decorations (or are they?), but they are introducing a new piece of legislation! Yay!

Well, sort of, at least. The Senate’s about to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, affectionately termed ENDA by those of us who talk about this shit all day. It’s not actually a new piece of legislation, since it was first introduced in 1994, and passed in 1998, under President Clinton. But after this vote, it might have some important new provisions.

Specifically, this week’s vote is about adding protections that would benefit the LGBT community, so that all of us non-breeders don’t have to worry about getting unceremoniously fired. That would be good, right?

Absolutely! Except here’s the problem—this new and improved version of ENDA doesn’t have great prospects in the House. A bunch of Congress-people down there are planning to vote against it.

We’re looking at you, Boehner. You are just not a likeable guy these days, my man.

He’s publicly opposed the bill, sending one of his henchmen (I mean, spokespeople! Freudian slip, my bad), Michael Steel, to tell the press, “The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs.”

So, passing a bill that will prevent people from getting fired will magically make jobs disappear? Oh, Boehner, you silly goose. You’ve got it backwards! When people don’t get fired, they get to keep their jobs, meaning less unemployment and a better economy for everyone. But you knew that, right?

Right.

Also, frivolous litigation? So, when people sue their employers for wrongful termination, you would consider that to be frivolous? Interesting.

I think what Speaker Boehner is getting at here, is the idea that adding the LGBT community to ENDA is unnecessary. According to him, us queers don’t have a problem with employment discrimination, and if we do, there’s other legislation that can handle it for us.

By that line of reasoning, if we get more laws protecting our employment prospects, queers would pretty much be unfire-able. Every time one of us faces termination—no matter how warranted—we’ll threaten our employer with a discrimination lawsuit, and wind up either suing people left and right, or never being unemployed again.

Ah, if only life were that simple, Boehner. Here’s the reality for queers in the workforce.

Thanks Upworthy!

In the 29 red states on this map, it’s completely legal to fire someone from their job because of their sexual orientation.

Literally. No exaggerations, no equivocations. For real.

In the 29 red states, if your boss does not approve of who you like to fuck in your spare time, he or she can fire your ass, no questions asked.

That is a major problem.

And it’s worse for trans or gender-non-conforming people. There are 33 states where it’s totally legal to fire someone based on their gender identity.

Seriously. And, up to 43 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have experienced harassment or discrimination at work because of their sexual orientation. Ninety percent of trans folks have had these experiences.

Is it just me, or are those some extremely depressing numbers?

For starters, it sucks being harassed or discriminated against at work. And that’s putting it lightly. We all spend the majority of our lives at work—imagine spending that time getting treated like shit by your boss and/or coworkers, just because of who you are? That shit’s soul crushing.

And that’s if you’re lucky enough to have a job at all. At least in this bummer-town scenario, you’re earning a paycheck.

But what happens when the abuse gets to be so bad that you’re forced to quit? Or when your boss decides that having a fabulous, queermo, rainbow butterfly on his payroll isn’t acceptable, and fires your ass?

Then you’ve got no way to pay your rent. No wonder queers face higher rates of poverty and unemployment.

So, Speaker Boehner, here’s the thing.

Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to ENDA, as two reasons that are NOT legal grounds for firing someone, is a good thing. At the end of the day, it translates to less unemployment, less poverty, and generally, less douche-iness.

So let’s get it done, Congress! Add us queers to your list of legally protected citizens who can’t be discriminated against in the workplace.

Then, maybe next week I won’t write a follow-up piece about how you’re all assholes.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Philippa Willitts via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress, Make it Stop: You Can Still Get Fired for Being Gay appeared first on Law Street.

In the workplace, there are certain parameters of acceptable behavior that are common knowledge, and then it is up to a given company’s discretion to set additional rules. For example, a big-time global firm by the name of Clifford Chance recently sent out an office memo on how to act appropriately within the workplace to its American offices. Parts of the memo were aimed seeming exclusively at women, and overall the piece was a rather impressive display of sexism.

The memo was entitled “Speaking Effectively” and contained 150 pieces of advice on various types of presentation skills. Some of the tips were pretty benign and gender-neutral, such as to bring notes to presentations, make strong eye contact, timing speeches, and using pauses effectively. However, others were clearly aimed at women, and can be considered patronizing at best.

The five-page memo is broken up into a number of categories, and each category seems to contain an extra tip for women. Some of my personal favorite lines:

• “Pretend you’re in moot court, not the high school cafeteria.”
• “Your voice is higher than you hear. Think Lauren Bacall, not Marilyn Monroe.”
• “Don’t giggle.”
• “Don’t hide behind your hair.”
• “Don’t take your purse up to the podium.”
• “Wear a suit, not your party outfit.”
• “Understated jewelry, nothing jingly or clanky.”
• “No one heard Hillary the day she showed cleavage.”
• “If wearing a skirt, make sure audience can’t see up it when sitting on the dias.”
• “Make sure you can stand in your heels, not trip, don’t rock back on them.”

None of these tips could be construed as anything but specifically aimed at female attorneys. Stating that Lauren Bacall, an American actress known for her “distinctive husky voice and sultry looks,” is a more appropriate voice role model than a different actress is condescending. Demeaning our former Secretary of State Clinton’s outfit choices is uninspired—no one would ever make an equal comparison to our male politicians. And overall, this memo treats female attorneys as though they are teenagers, and reduces their high educational attainment and worth to their physical and verbal appearances.

The worst part about this memo is the way in which these tips are presented, not the tips themselves. As someone who has competed in public speaking activities for many years, and who is constantly charged with teaching other young women how to present, some aspects of these are grounded in reality. The issue is that they’re not just for women, they’re tips for men too. Everyone should know that there’s an appropriate professional voice and personal voice. Both women and men should speak differently to their friends than their coworkers. But by comparing women’s voices to celebrities, and not making a similar comparison for men, is where this memo veers into grossly inappropriate territory.

As much as we would like to think differently, women are still at a disadvantage in the workplace. While estimates of its actual value range from 77 cents – 91 cents, the gender pay gap does indisputably exist. Furthermore, we constantly are hearing case after case of sexual harassment—from San Diego Mayor Bob Filner’s rampant inappropriate behavior, to a recent revelation that unpaid interns aren’t necessarily protected from sexual harassment.

Then there are memos like this one from Clifford Chance. It differentiates between men and women, and while it cannot necessarily be legally defined as sexual harassment, it is absolutely discriminatory. As long as women are treated like children while being told how to behave appropriately in the work place at a prominent firm, workplace equality will remain a struggle.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Wilson via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Commonsense Etiquette or Blatant Sexism? appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department is gearing up to take aggressive legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the country. This is an attempt to soften the impact of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on Voting Rights that invalidated section five of the act, which protects minority voters by requiring certain states with a history of discrimination to be granted court approval before making voting law changes.

In the coming weeks, the Justice Department will use other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits preventing states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present identification in order to vote. The department will attempt to force some states to receive approval or preclearance before they change election laws. Their first step will support lawsuit a in Texas concerning the state’s redistricting plan. Additionally, Attorney General Eric Holder is asking a federal judge to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a ten-year period because of its history of discrimination.

[The Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Battle Royal: Justice Department Challenges States on Voting Rights Laws appeared first on Law Street.