A recently published study found evidence that Seattle’s phased-in $15 hourly minimum wage has led to an overall decrease in low-wage jobs. But some analysts doubt the study’s methodology, and attribute the low-wage job decrease to Seattle’s booming labor market. Low-wage workers are simply getting paid more because of the market, critics of the study contend, thus the decrease in wages for lower paying jobs.

In 2014, Seattle became one of the first jurisdictions to commit to a $15 per hour minimum wage, a benchmark that would be phased-in over a few years. The first wage hike was in April 2015, as large businesses began paying their employees at least $11 per hour, up from $9.47. In January 2016, the minimum hourly wage for large businesses rose to $13; in January of this year, the rate finally hit $15. The wage increases for smaller businesses were more modest–many have yet to reach the $15 benchmark.

The study, conducted by University of Washington researchers, concluded the following:

Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

But not everyone is taking the study’s findings at face value. For one, it has not been peer reviewed. Critics say the drop in working hours for low-wage jobs is not necessarily a result of the minimum wage bump–the decline is due to Seattle’s flowering economy, they say. Instead, some analysts say, lower wage earners have seen a paycheck bump because of natural economic trends.

“The key challenge this study faces is how to separate the normal shift that’s happening in a booming labor market — where low-wage jobs disappear and are replaced by higher-wage jobs — from an actual increase in the minimum wage,” Ben Zipperer, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, told the New York Times.

To discern the precise cause of the decrease in low-wage jobs–either Seattle’s economic forces or its minimum wage hike–the researchers cobbled together a control group. Normally, researchers would compare Seattle to a city with near-identical variables, but a city that, unlike Seattle, did not significantly raise its minimum wage. For this study, however, the researchers took parts of areas throughout Washington State and patched them together to create a control group. Still, the researchers found Seattle’s situation to be unique.

“You see the biggest difference in the effect when the minimum wage increased from $11 to $13,” said Mark Long, one of the authors of the UW study. “The timing suggests it’s the minimum wage,” he added, not the natural effects of a growing economy. But Long did allow that his study’s conclusions might be flawed: “If the areas we’re picking to put weight on don’t match what would have happened to Seattle in the absence of the minimum wage, our results would be potentially biased.”

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 Has Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Hurt Employment? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Paris Man Who Rammed Car of Explosives into Police Vehicle Was on Terror Watch List

Yesterday, a man rammed a car full of explosives into a police vehicle, although he only ended up killing himself. The incident is being investigated as a terror attack. It took place on the historic Champs-Elysees. In April, the famous avenue saw another attack, when a man shot a police officer. Authorities had previously flagged the perpetrator, who was identified as Adam Dzaziri, 31, for potential extremism. There were also knives, pistols, and an assault rifle inside the vehicle.

Guns are not easily accessible in Europe and this morning Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said he is “dismayed” that someone on a terror watch list had so many weapons. “Nobody can be satisfied–and certainly not me–that someone who had been flagged as radicalized had not been stripped of his right to own a gun,” he said. France has remained under a state of emergency since 2015 following a string of terror attacks. For many Europeans, these terror attacks have become the new normal.

Suspect’s family members detained after Champs-Elysees attack in Paris https://t.co/w8TZQneypO pic.twitter.com/gBMikNzhVX

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) June 20, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: June 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Amazon says it will let a homeless shelter move into one of its new buildings in Seattle once the construction is completed. The company initially allowed the shelter to temporarily move into a motel on one of its properties, but now the retail giant proposed a long-term solution.

The original deal was for the organization, Mary’s Place, to stay in the motel until it was time to tear it down and start construction on the new building. But in a generous arrangement that was announced on Wednesday, Amazon said it will make room for Mary’s Place in one of its new buildings and that the solution will be “permanent.”

This is a huge deal for the nonprofit, which turns unused buildings into temporary shelters and has had to move around frequently. The new space will consist of 47,000 square feet and will be able to house 220 people. Amazon will pay for the design and construction of the building. It will also pay all utilities, and let Mary’s Place stay there rent-free.

What the homeless shelter in Amazon’s building will look like. Occupies half of shorter Amazon building on right https://t.co/B5JHJopYxD pic.twitter.com/nZEPUKWDS5

— Nick Wingfield (@nickwingfield) May 10, 2017

Amazon itself has faced criticism for how it treats its warehouse workers due to the seasonality of its business, with the sales volume increasing significantly around the holidays. This means Amazon employs a large number of people in the last quarter of the year. The pay for short-term workers is low, starting at around $10 an hour, and there is no job security or benefits. After the holidays, seasonal workers lose their jobs and can’t apply for an Amazon position again until after a year.

For people struggling to make ends meet, or those who live in a homeless shelter, seasonal employment is a difficult problem. Often, when they get a job, they move out of the shelter and try to find a more permanent solution too quickly. Many run out of money when they are let go from the temporary job and have to go back. It’s hard to break the cycle of homelessness.

Seattle has also had a particularly bad homelessness problem. In 2015, the situation became so bad that the mayor declared a state of emergency in the city. That year, more than 45 people died on the streets, and almost 3,000 children attending public schools were homeless. Last year, the number of homeless people in the area exceeded 10,000, of which about 4,500 lived on the streets, according to numbers from the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness.

The crisis has been blamed on the heroin epidemic, job losses after the Great Recession, and inadequate means to treat people with mental illnesses. The city also receives less money for affordable housing from the federal government than in previous years. Many people sleep in tents along the road or below highway overpasses.

The people working at Mary’s Place are relieved to finally have a permanent spot. “I see it as this huge gift because everywhere we go, we end up leaving,” said Marty Hartman, executive director of the shelter. Amazon’s vice president for global real estate and facilities, John Schoettler, said that this is an investment in the neighborhood. Amazon also has a bigger responsibility than before; nowadays it has 30,000 employees in Seattle, which makes it the biggest private employer in the city.

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 Amazon’s New Building in Seattle will Include a Homeless Shelter appeared first on Law Street.

A police officer in Seattle was arrested last Friday on charges of conspiring to distribute hundreds of pounds of marijuana. According to the FBI, which has been investigating the trafficking scheme since the summer of 2015, Officer Alex Chapackdee would drive pot from Seattle to Baltimore and other neighboring cities in Virginia and Maryland.

A preliminary hearing for the 44-year-old is tentatively scheduled for May 22, but that hearing could be canceled if the grand jury returns an indictment in the case.

.@SeattlePD officer Alex Chapackdee described as ‘good, caring cop.’ Now facing drug charge. More reaction live at 6:30 @KIRO7Seattle pic.twitter.com/xqaRwLoakS

— DeborahHorne (@DeborahKIRO7) May 8, 2017

Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole called Officer Chapackdee’s conduct “disgraceful and disappointing” in a statement Monday.

“While [it is] always disturbing to investigate one of our own, I am proud of the detectives and commanders who worked diligently on this case,” the statement said. “While he will have his due process in the courts, I hope these charges demonstrate to our community that SPD will not tolerate corrupt behavior in our ranks.”

The federal complaint detailed the trafficking scheme that Chapackdee was involved in. While driving in police vans, Chapackdee and others would allegedly deliver hundreds of pounds of marijuana from the Seattle area to Baltimore and other surrounding neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland. The mules were working on behalf of Tuan Van Le, Chapackdee’s brother-in-law and ringleader of the trafficking scheme.

Trafficking any amount of marijuana across state lines is considered a federal offense. If convicted, Chapackdee faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, with a maximum stint of 40 years. He could also face a fine of up to $5 million.

Federal prosecutors allege that Chapackdee and his associates–a team of four–took several one-way flights from Seattle to Baltimore’s BWI airport in order to pick up cash payments for Le’s Seattle-grown marijuana, which they then drove back to the west coast.

According to the FBI’s complaint, Le would also pay Chapackdee $10,000 a month “to keep an eye on all of Tuan Van Le’s marijuana grow houses” and to provide him with information about law-enforcement activities.

Chapackdee’s attorney said that his client’s participation in the marijuana trafficking scheme is a “huge fall from grace, an embarrassment.”

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 Seattle Cop Caught Smuggling Marijuana to Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

What do banned airport leggings and messed up immigration policies have in common? They are both stirring up some controversy, topping the list of stories our readers couldn’t get enough of last week. ICYMI, catch up on these top stories with Law Street’s best of the week below!

Seattle Joins the Sanctuary Cities Fight

Seattle sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday over its strict immigration policies, and its threats to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. Arguing that the administration’s warnings are unconstitutional, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said federal authorities “cannot force our local police officials to be involved in federal immigration activities.”

United Prevents Girls Wearing Leggings from Boarding Flight

United Airlines is receiving criticism, after it was reported that two young girls were prohibited from boarding a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were reportedly traveling from Denver to Minneapolis when three of them were stopped for their outfits. One changed out of the leggings and was let on the flight, and the other two were prohibited from boarding.

The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Seattle sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday over its strict immigration policies, and its threats to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. Arguing that the administration’s warnings are unconstitutional, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said federal authorities “cannot force our local police officials to be involved in federal immigration activities.”

“Once again, this new administration has decided to bully,” he added. With Wednesday’s lawsuit, Seattle joins San Francisco in bringing legal action against the administration for its January 25 executive order that called for a freeze in federal funding to sanctuary cities–cities that direct their law enforcement officers to withhold the legal status of immigrants who are arrested. On Monday, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a fresh warning to sanctuary cities at the White House, echoing the policy sketched out in the executive order.

“I strongly urge our nation’s states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and to rethink these policies,” Sessions said. “Such policies make their cities and states less safe — public safety as well as national security are at stake — and put them at risk of losing federal dollars.”

The total amount, Sessions suggested, that sanctuary cities could stand to lose—mainly in federal grants for local law enforcement agencies—is $4.1 billion. The administration’s policy has not gone into effect yet. But Murray argues the administration’s threats and coercive tactics amount to a breach of the 10th Amendment, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

On Monday, after Sessions’s missive, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also pledged to fight the administration, tweeting:

The Trump Administration is pushing an unrealistic and mean spirited executive order. If they want a fight, we’ll see them in court.

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) March 27, 2017

The Trump Administration’s executive order, issued five days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, spelled out its hard-line stance on illegal immigration, in a policy that includes stiff penalties for cities that resist cooperating with federal authorities.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States,” the order read, directing that “jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds.”

But Murray said federal funds are not necessarily linked to his city’s immigration policies, and argued that other grant-dependent programs could take a hit if the administration withholds grants. “Things like grants helping us with child sex trafficking are not connected to immigration,” Murray said. “It is time for cities to stand up and ask the courts to put an end to the anxiety in our cities and the chaos in our system.”

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 Seattle Joins the Sanctuary Cities Fight appeared first on Law Street.

Amazon is planning to open a line of new, futuristic grocery stores, where you can get everything you need without standing in line or checking out. No more impatiently waiting behind people with an overloaded cart, or realizing you forgot your wallet at home.

It sounds like the future, but the online retailer plans to open the first physical store in early 2017. The first will be located in downtown Seattle, but according to the company’s internal plans, it could open up 2,000 new shops across the country within the next decade.

The company showed what the stores would look like in a video released Monday.

Introducing #AmazonGo, a new kind of store with no lines and no checkout. https://t.co/WMii0bWevi pic.twitter.com/OmZdzobA5F

— Amazon (@amazon) December 5, 2016

The shopping would work through an app with the same name as the store–Amazon Go. You would scan your smartphone at a digital gate when entering the store, and then the app would detect which products you pick out and put in your bag. When leaving, the sensors at the exit would notice and the app would automatically charge your Amazon account. Amazon says the stores would use the same technologies as self-driving cars do; computer vision, sensor fusion, and deep learning. The stores would be relatively small, taking up approximately 1,800 square feet.

This seems pretty great for consumers, who would save time and effort by using the Amazon Go stores. But with all this new technology doing the work for us this kind of automation, if it becomes widespread, could lead to a lot of people losing their jobs and source of income. There are already driverless cars in development, so what will happen when that technology is good and safe enough to replace taxi drivers? Likewise, grocery store cashiers are probably not overly excited about Amazon’s new plans.

Amazon Go eliminates the need for cashiers. There are 3.4 million of them in America. https://t.co/GwTvptSjMj

— Christopher Mims (@mims) December 5, 2016

Amazon has flirted with increasing its influence in physical markets for some time now, for example by opening three IRL bookstores with two more on the way. The company also already offers grocery delivery in some major cities. The first Amazon Go store in Seattle is actually already open to Amazon employees, who are currently beta testing the technology. And if everything goes according to plan, it will open to the public early next year.

Amazon Go pic.twitter.com/Eygx2mOh2q

— Caroline McCarthy (@caro) December 5, 2016

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 Amazon Plans to Open Grocery Stores Without Checkout Lines appeared first on Law Street.

Seattle, Washington just became one of the largest school districts in the country to switch its school start times past 8:30 AM in an attempt to allow students to sleep in later. The Seattle school board voted to switch times based on a large collection of research that indicates that providing young people with the opportunity for more sleep can improve learning and overall health.

The vote, which was six-to-one, will change the start time for all of Seattle’s high schools to 8:45 AM during the next school year (2016-2017.) Many, but not all, middle and elementary schools will follow suit. Others will start at either 7:55 or 9:35, presumably in order to stagger the bus schedules.

Beginning this summer, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began urging schools to consider later start times. In doing so, the CDC joined other experts advocating for the same thing, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. It’s essential that young, still-developing teenagers average between 8.5 to 9.5 hours of sleep a night. However, a CDC study found:

That high schools that begin as late as 8:55 a.m. have 66 percent of students getting eight or more hours of sleep on school nights, which is the recommended amount for high school students. Schools that begin at 7:30 a.m. have an average of only 34 percent of students obtaining eight or more hours of sleep on school nights.

That makes a serious difference in how students learn throughout the day. According to a University of Minnesota study:

Researchers analyzed data from more than 9,000 students at eight high schools in Minnesota, Colorado, and Wyoming and found that shifting the school day later in the morning resulted in a boost in attendance, test scores, and grades in math, English, science, and social studies. Schools also saw a decrease in tardiness, substance abuse, and symptoms of depression. Some even had a dramatic drop in teen car crashes.

However, not everyone is happy with the changes–particularly the parents of the children who will be in one of the middle or elementary schools that will start at 9:35 AM. But pressure from the community to change the start times in a way that benefited as many children as possible seemed to outweigh the hesitations. Seattle hopes that by being one of the largest school districts in the country to make the switch to later start times it will start a trend and show other large school districts that it’s doable–maybe more will jump on the bandwagon for the 2016-2017 school year.

Learn More: School Start Times: Do More ZZZs Equal More As? 

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 Seattle Votes for Later School Start Times appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow is, technically speaking, Columbus Day. But that’s not what it’s called everywhere, as cities across the United States are moving toward calling the day Indigenous Peoples Day.

The first city to abolish the name “Columbus Day” was Berkeley, California in 1992. Since then, there’s been a slow trickle of additional towns and counties changing the name. Other places that have renamed the holiday since Berkeley’s landmark decision include Seattle, Minneapolis, and South Dakota. This year, eight major cities and counties–Albuquerque, New Mexico; Lawrence, Kansas; Portland, Oregon; St. Paul, Minnesota; Bexar County, Texas; Anadarko, Oklahoma; Olympia, Washington; and Alpena, Michigan–all began celebrating Indigenous Peoples day.

Indigenous Peoples Day aims to recognize the fact that the indigenous people that Columbus encountered were often subject to horrible treatment, abuse, and disease. Estimates put the percent of the native population killed upon European arrival in the Americas at 90 percent. Those who argue for Indigenous Peoples Day also do so in recognition of the fact that discrimination has continued against indigenous people even in recent years. The native population in the United States still has to contend with poverty, health issues, income inequality, and racism. As Melanie Yazzie, co-founder of a group called Red Nation, one of the organizations pushing to name the holiday Indigenous Peoples Day, explained:

It is important because the second Monday in October is officially recognized nationally and even internationally as Columbus Day. As countless people have pointed out over the past decades of trying to abolish Columbus Day, it is a holiday created to celebrate the genocide of Native people. This is experienced by Native people as a violent event that has not ended. We still live under a sort of colonialism here, at least in the United States

Change Columbus Day to #IndigenousPeoplesDay #BoycottColumbusDay pic.twitter.com/yu5MyPbN1u

— #IndigenousPeopleDay (@marthauprise) October 3, 2015

No, we should not celebrate #ColumbusDay! – #AntiColumbus #IndigenousPeoplesDay #AntiColumbusDay pic.twitter.com/71oZqQW1Xn — Kathrin Sapiha (@KathrinSapiha) October 11, 2015

However, the quest to rename Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples Day has been a struggle, largely promoted through lobbying at the local level. It stands contrary to the view of history that many Americans have, in which Columbus’s arrival in the New World is celebrated. Moreover, it is just a symbolic movement–there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done to improve the lives of native people. However, it’s certainly a step in the right direction–Columbus Day may become a relic of the past very soon, and for good reason.

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 Columbus Day vs. Indigenous Peoples Day: A Campaign for Change appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I wrote an article about gaming convention Gen Con threatening to take their expo elsewhere if Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law. Gov Pence appeared unphased by the threat of losing big business, quietly signing the controversial bill into law last Thursday. Now three states have joined a list of notable celebrities, politicians, and corporate execs speaking out against the governor’s decision by banning state-funded travel to the state. These actions have resulted in Pence’s announcement that he will work this week to clarify the law so that it does not legalize discrimination.

The bill, which becomes effective July 1, 2015, would prevent individuals in the state from being forced by government entities to violate their religious beliefs. Contention has spawned from critics saying the bill will extend protection to businesses to legally discriminate against LGBT patrons by refusing them service. In a press conference this morning the governor addressed critics, announcing that he will work to fix the law by asking the state assembly to clarify that businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone; he has no plans to make the state legislation disappear.

When news surfaced that Pence had privately signed the bill, it didn’t take long for a slew of celebrities and public officials to begin voicing their outrage via social media.

Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana’s new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228.

— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) March 27, 2015

Indiana’s anti-gay ‘Religious Freedom’ bill signed by Gov. Pence is absurd & insulting. This is 2015. Ridiculous. #RFRA — Larry King (@kingsthings) March 27, 2015

When will conservatives like Mike Pence figure out discriminating against #lgbt under the guise of faith is REALLY bad politics?

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) March 26, 2015

Yesterday, states began taking action against the “anti-gay” bill by banning state-funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut became the first state to boycott Indiana over its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when Governor Dan Malloy signed an executive order barring state-funded travel to the state. Malloy announced his decision with the following tweets:

When new laws turn back the clock on progress, we can’t sit idly by. We are sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated. -DM

— Governor Dan Malloy (@GovMalloyOffice) March 30, 2015

Two other cities, San Francisco and Seattle, joined Connecticut by imposing similar travel bans in response to the bill. A list of businesses, following in the steps of Gen Con, have also begun to reconsider doing business with the state. Some notable opposition includes Angie’s List, which decided to halt a campus-expansion project in Indianapolis, and $4 billion software corporation Salesforce, whose CEO announced plans to “dramatically reduce our investment” in the state. PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who also opposes the law, sent a message to his corporate peers telling CNN:

I’m asking my fellow CEOs to look at how they’re thinking about their relationship with the state and evaluate it in terms of the legislation that’s getting signed into law.

Indiana is hardly the first state to introduce RFRA laws; there are currently 20 states that have done so. However, Indiana’s law is “substantially different” according to the Huffington Post, which writes:

While other state RFRAs apply to disputes between a person and a government, Indiana’s law goes further and applies to disputes between private citizens. That means, for example, a business owner could use the law to justify discrimination against customers who might otherwise be protected under law.

The publicity from the bill has cast a negative light on the state, but a coalition of independent merchants in Indiana have joined a new campaign showing support for the LGBT community called Open For Service. Participating companies want customers to know that the bill won’t change the way they do business. The campaign celebrates businesses that oppose discrimination of any type, allowing companies to register with them and order stickers to be displayed in shop windows that read “this business serves everyone.”

The combination of this campaign with the current efforts of celebrities, politicians, and big CEOs are what most likely caused Pence to announce that his office will finally take action. No word yet on what will happen to the religious freedom law if the assembly fails to produce Pence’s requested joint anti-discrimination law this week, but at least the governor is finally attempting, albeit very poorly, to assure citizens that Indiana will be welcome to all.

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 Backlash Over Discriminatory Indiana Law Forces Governor to Clarify appeared first on Law Street.

If you live in a major metropolitan area, or honestly even a small one, there’s a very decent chance that you’ll see protests today. You probably saw some last night as well. For any of you who have been living under a particularly comfortable and sheltered rock lately, the protests focus on the cases of two black men killed by police officers. Michael Brown, an 18 year old in Ferguson, Missouri, was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014. On November 24 it was announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Wilson. Next, there’s the case of Eric Garner in New York, who was killed by Officer Daniel Pantaleo on July 17, 2014. Pantaleo was filmed putting Garner in a chokehold, even though that tactic is banned by the New York Police Department.

Here’s an example of the “hands up don’t shoot” gesture being used in protest:

"Hands up, dont shoot!!" #NYC #FergusonDecision #justice pic.twitter.com/OwMfX72v4H

— Arnaud Montagard (@arnaudmontagard) November 26, 2014

And Garner’s last words, which have become a rallying cry:

I almost can't read this. So painful. So ugly. #ICantBreathe pic.twitter.com/KVVbK6Gf0A

— Tessa Francis (@tessafrancis) December 4, 2014

Those are the roots of the protests, the catalysts. But the protests aren’t just about these two men. They’re about the greater issue–or more appropriately issues. I’m not trying to make an exhaustive list here but these protests are about the national conversations we need to have on racism, racial profiling, police violence, police militarization, etc, etc, etc. The protests are about a broken system–the deaths of Brown and Garner are tragic symptoms of this system.

The protests have been taking place all over the United States. New York, where Garner was killed, was especially busy. There was a “die-in” at Grand Central Station yesterday evening; a “die-in” is when protesters lie on the ground, silently.

Hundreds of people staged a "die-in" at Grand Central in NYC after #EricGarner decision. http://t.co/che6tRNyli pic.twitter.com/8cNl2DsEUw

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 4, 2014

Protesters marched through New York City and temporarily blocked traffic at major transportation hubs, including the Lincoln Tunnel. One of the protesters explained her motivations, saying:

Every 28 hours a young black man is killed by police. Only 2 percent of police are indicted. Those numbers are crazy. It’s telling young black men that their lives don’t matter and their deaths can be passed over.

Protests were also very active in our nation’s capital. Last night, protesters flooded Dupont Circle and stopped traffic, as well as at some other locations in Northwest Washington. Today there will be a protest over by the Department of Justice at 4:00pm.

Protesters blocking DC intersection to protest non-indictment in #Garner case. Protest is peaceful. Cops standing by pic.twitter.com/j0JSd9B62O

— Athena Jones (@AthenaCNN) December 4, 2014

Cities all over the country look like this, and I’m going to leave these pictures and videos here, because I think they say more than words ever could:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Philly protest at Tree Lighting event at City Hall #FergusonPHL #BlackLivesMatter #HandsUpDontShoot: http://t.co/FpDJKfBylC #EricGarner

— Daryel Jay (@DaryelJay) December 4, 2014

Oakland, California:

#EricGarner protest in Oakland. #NoJusticeNoPeace #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/0yxNmnJQQM

— Diana Saverin (@dianasaverin) December 4, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Seattle protests no indictment for NYPD officer whose chokehold led to death of #EricGarner >> http://t.co/nXEihNYg4p pic.twitter.com/I6PZktVbge

— KIRO 7 (@KIRO7Seattle) December 4, 2014

New York, New York

Garner widow on husband's killer: 'No I, don't accept his apologies’ http://t.co/NLncfA5Mft pic.twitter.com/pbkP6TCoVA

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) December 4, 2014

Those are faces of change. Faces tired of the way that our system has been failing. Faces that have had enough. Faces that deserve to be, finally, listened to.

If you’re interested in joining a protest, here’s where they’re happening today. They aren’t going to end anytime soon, because this crisis clearly isn’t ending anytime soon either.

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Americans Continue Protests appeared first on Law Street.

A new concept is sweeping the United States, one that many of our peer countries have had for years: paid sick leave. Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a law requiring most employers in the state to provide at least three paid sick days per year to their workers. While some American cities have already created similar laws, and the state of Connecticut has paid sick days in place for businesses that fall under certain requirements, California makes history as the first state to sign such an inclusive bill with regard to this benefit.

The idea is pretty simple — sickness is unpredictable. And sometimes people who have already used their vacation days, or simply can’t afford to take a day off, ever, get sick. When those people who can’t take a day off from work get sick, they not only most likely prolong their own illness, but also open up those they work with to sickness as well.

California’s law, although passed after Connecticut’s, is certainly more inclusive. Connecticut’s law, passed earlier this year, applies only to businesses with 50 employees or more. Manufacturers and certain types of tax-exempt organizations, regardless of the number of employees, aren’t required to follow the law. Day workers, non-hourly workers, and salaried employees also aren’t included — although that may be because salaried workers are often given sick days anyway. Connecticut’s law does, however, allow workers to accrue up to five sick days and while it was a unique and ground-breaking step, California’s law is significantly more far-reaching.

California’s law, on the other hand, applies to almost all employees, allowing them to acquire one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Assembleywoman Lorena Gonzalez explained the motivation behind the more inclusive law, saying:

We become the first state in the nation to guarantee paid sick days for every single private-sector worker in the state — no matter what industry they work in, no matter if they are part-time or seasonal, and regardless of the size of their employer. This means more than 6.5 million more workers in this state will be able to take up to three days off when they or their child is sick without fearing the loss of income, hours or their job.

Paid sick time off is an especially notable issue to examine because of the incredibly fast way in which it became a conversation in the United States. Less than 10 years ago, there were really no laws requiring paid time off for workers; now two different states have passed statewide laws to that effect, and many other cities require paid time off as well now.

The main argument against paid sick days is that it will hurt the economy, but we have pretty convincing evidence to show that simply isn’t the case. The Connecticut economy has reported no dramatic negative changes due to the implementation of the paid sick day law. Some cities, such as Seattle, Washington, have also reported seeing no economic downturn after the law was passed; Seattle has actually seen economic growth.

And given that extending paid sick days to the vast majority of employees doesn’t lead to any economic issues, the full humanitarian benefits of the law really can be realized. As Governor Brown put it when he signed the bill into law:

Whether you’re a dishwasher in San Diego or a store clerk in Oakland, this bill frees you of having to choose between your family’s health and your job. Make no mistake, California is putting its workers first.

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 Congrats California Workers: Paid Sick Days are Coming Your Way appeared first on Law Street.

Sports stadiums are great places for brawls to break out. Or fist fights, alcohol induced screaming matches, or a whole litany of other inappropriate behavior. So, in some cities with NFL teams, police are coming up with new ways to try to stem the violence. In Seattle, for example, members of the police force are going to go undercover as opposing teams’ fans. At last night’s game against Green Bay, Seattle officers planned to wander around in Packers’ garb.

Apparently this is not a new thing — officers have shown up to games a few times before dressed as opposing teams’ fans. In a post-season 49ers-Giants game last year, for example, there were undercover cops in Giants wear.

The move is an interesting and pragmatic one in a sport that has a history of fighting almost as old as the NFL itself. It’s not hard to find examples of two teams’ fans getting into it — take the nasty fight between fans of the San Diego Chargers and Dallas Cowboys last October, for example. Two groups, each wearing their teams’ jerseys, brawled in the stadium parking lot after one woman slapped a man for reasons still unknown but probably related to the game that had just let out. The fight escalated until people were hit over the head with beer bottles in a confrontation that lasted for a total of 25 minutes. In a follow up with the police after the fight, local news station NBC 7 learned that there are arrests after pretty much every Chargers home game.

The fights don’t even always happen during games that really matter. A few years ago, after a preseason game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders, two men were shot in an apparent sports-induced altercation.

It’s pretty easy to understand how football games, and other sports for that matter, can end in blows. In addition to freely flowing alcohol, there’s something about sports that can get people so completely riled up. Christian End, a professor of sports fan behavior at Xavier University, explains the phenomenon, pointing out that it’s easy to get swept up in a crowd. As End explains it, “the anonymity of large crowds can afford some fans the opportunity to act in a way that they typically wouldn’t because there’s less accountability and less fear of repercussion.”

There’s few solutions to the problem of fan violence at football games, and the ones that do exist seem entirely unlikely to be implemented. For example, given that alcohol is often fuel for these fights, it would make sense to ban alcohol at sporting events, or at the very least install some sort of drink limit. But given the huge profits made from selling alcohol at football games, I highly doubt any NFL team would ever comply.

So, here we are, with undercover cops dressed up as fans from incoming teams. Well, sort of. They’re undercover in the sense that they are not easily distinguishable as cops, but in Seattle the police are being very forthright about their plans. The operation is an attempt to deter violence in the first place — a message to Seahawks fans not to attack that jerk in the Packers shirt, because he may be able to turn around and arrest you. If it goes well, and the officers are able to respond accordingly to any violence that does break out, it’s a model that would be pretty easily implemented throughout the country at games that are high risk for confrontations. Fights will probably still happen, but hopefully some would-be brawlers will think twice.

—

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 [Jame and Jesse 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 Undercover Cops Coming to an NFL Game Near You appeared first on Law Street.

In June, Seattle made the news when the city announced that it would be upping its minimum wage to $15 per hour. In a time when arguments over the minimum wage has led to various strikes, discussions, and political debates, the Seattle move was unprecedented. It was pretty smooth too–the Seattle mayor was able to negotiate between a lot of different parties in order to create such a high minimum wage without much resistance. But now the change has finally hit a road bump–attorney Paul Clement is suing the city of Seattle for the minimum wage hike.

The lawsuit, filed by Clement, is on behalf of an organization called the International Franchise Organization. This move has received support from several major organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and National Restaurant Organization, both of which recently joined the lawsuit.

The problem that these groups have with the new minimum wage law stems from the way in which it distinguishes between national chains, franchises, and small businesses. The current text of the law will require large corporations with chains in Seattle to adopt the $15 minimum wage within the next three years. Small businesses have up to seven years to implement it. Franchisees–small businesses that are affiliated with but not operated by larger chains, must implement it within three years. Examples of franchises include Pizza Hut, Dunkin Donuts, and Subway.

The Mayor of Seattle, Ed Murray claims that franchises have support that small mom-and-pop businesses don’t–namely in the form of advertisements, supplies, and menu creation.

The lawyer filing the suit on behalf of the franchisees, Paul Clement,  has had a lot of success with arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court. He has argued 74 cases in front of the highest court in the land, including two of the most talked-about cases of this year–Clement was involved in both the Hobby Lobby and Aereo cases. Clement was also involved in cases related to the Affordable Care Act, and argued on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act.

He explained why he felt so strongly about the rights of franchisees to receive more time to implement the minimum wage:

I think that that points to the issue that’s at the heart of this case: corporate separateness. When you walk into a McDonald’s or Days Inn or coffee shop that has a dozen outlets, you’re not walking into corporate headquarters. These franchised companies are organized differently from a company that’s one monolithic company with one set of management and one set of employees.

Clement also claims that this is a direct attack on the franchise model of business–mostly coordinated by unions.

This suit marks an interesting turn in a large nation-wide debate about minimum wages. The argument isn’t being made that the wage hike shouldn’t happen, but rather that it’s being pushed on too quick of a time-table. That’s a good sign for minimum wage increases, and indicates that the organizations currently challenging the law realize that. Although $15 is a lot more than what most places are proposing, the idea of a minimum wage hike in general appears to be widely supported. As of a poll about 10 months ago, roughly 75 percent of American support raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour. Whichever way the Seattle fight goes, hopefully the minimum wage will soon take a big jump.

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 Seattle Minimum Wage Battle Heading to Court appeared first on Law Street.

Prior to this week Alaska remained the only state without its own law school, but thanks to the Seattle University School of Law that is no longer true. After six months of planning and negotiating, it’s official: Anchorage will be home to a satellite campus of the Washington state law school. This is potentially a positive symbiotic relationship. The goal of this move is to improve the legal industry in both states, and if the intended outcome becomes reality, there may be hope for our nation’s legal industry. Let’s look at how.

Alaska’s Benefits

Of all 736,399 Alaskan residents, approximately 4,000 are lawyers, but very few of those lawyers are Alaskan natives. According to the American Bar Association, the total number of active lawyers in 2013 who are U.S. residents was 1,268,011. That means that only .003 percent of American lawyers reside in Alaska. The reason for such a small legal industry in the state is accessibility. Alaskans are deterred from moving to other states to go to law school because of high expenses and complicated logistics. This deal with Seattle University will help change that trend.

It’s  important to note that Alaskans will finally be granted an easily accessible legal education. Why this hasn’t happened sooner I cannot understand. But I think the partnership with Seattle is a great step forward for the legal education industry and I hope Alaskan students dive right in.

Seattle’s Benefits

In an attempt to fight the rapidly decreasing law school enrollment rates, SU Law is implementing several creative methods. In addition to offering a two-year law program and in-state tuition to top out-of-state students, SU Law is planning this satellite campus in Alaska.

According to the Seattle Times, law school enrollment has declined by about 23 percent over the last three years; in Washington, it’s dropped by a third. Simultaneously, the need for representation is at an all-time high, so what solution could be better than making law school more accessible across the nation?

Beginning of a Trend?

I’ve done some scouring and it seems SU Law is not alone in the implementation of a satellite campus. But the other institutions merely implement satellite centers or the satellite campus is in a different city, not a different state. For example, the main campus of Stetson Law is located in St. Petersburg, Florida, but the school hosts a satellite center in Tampa Bay. The Tampa Law Center is located in an upcoming hub for legal activity and shares its law library and courtroom with Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals. Similarly, the University of Oregon School of Law is located in Eugene but has a satellite in Portland. Like the Seattle-Alaska program, students will be able to complete their third years at the satellite campus.

Could satellite campuses that reduce tuition be the best way to increase law school enrollment?

The United States is home to more than 200 law schools. Seems a bit excessive, but I guess it fits with our unofficial national motto of “Go big or go home.” If more states begin implementing methods similar to those of Seattle, more students would be inclined to enroll.

Even better, schools with specialized areas of study could offer program-specific courses at satellite campuses. The need for more accessible law schools paired with a new approach to provide highly specialized studies could fix the downturn in law school enrollment. Alaska lacks lawyers who practice in specific disciplines, including same-sex issues, civil rights, and drug crimes.

Offering specialized programs like business, civil rights, healthcare, and intellectual property law allows students to graduate with a fuller knowledge of those fields. Plus they get to focus on what interests them most, in an environment that is even more accessible than ever before for remote areas like Alaska.

I commend Seattle University for making a noble attempt to create real change in the legal industry.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Christian Meichtry via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: Seattle Satellite Campus appeared first on Law Street.

“10, 9, 8, 7…” you count back as you begin to drift into an anesthetic haze. Soon you’re completely unconscious, and your surgery is underway. The surgeon begins to open you up for a complicated procedure, and your anesthesiologist is…sexting? Well, that’s not so unfathomable. Last week, Seattle anesthesiologist Dr. Arthur Zilberstein’s medical license was suspended due to allegations that he was sexting during surgery. According to the Medical Quality Assurance Commission, Zilberstein repeatedly sent sexually explicit text messages while acting as the lead anesthesiologist in surgeries. The Washington State Department of Health has reported that the doctor had “compromised patient safety due to his preoccupation with sexual matters while he was on hospital duty between at least April and August 2013.”

This was not just a quick, one time thing. The doctor sent dozens of messages on numerous occasions. On June 17, 2013, Zilberstein sent 64 texts over the course of seven surgeries. Most of these messages were sent minutes apart, including one that read, “I’m hella busy with C sections.” It’s clear he wasn’t “hella busy” enough to put down the phone. During an August 6 surgery Zilberman exchanged 45 sexually explicit text messages.

Swedish Medical Center, the hospital where Zilberstein worked, released a statement shortly after the allegations were made public: “Respondent’s lack of focus on patient care while providing anesthesia services for hospital-based surgical procedures routinely fell below the standard of care and put patients at unreasonable risk of harm.” The statement also read:

The safety of our patients is our number one priority, once we learned that the State had suspended this physician’s medical license, the physician’s Medical Staff membership and privileges were immediately suspended. We just recently learned of these allegations and are conducting our own internal review of the physician, who is not directly employed by Swedish.

While naturally there are going to be distractions in the operating room, they have skyrocketed over the past several years with the increased reliance on technology. We are constantly texting and checking our phones throughout the day. But what place do cell phones have in the operating room where lives are on the line? A panel of surgeons, organized by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, discussed distractions in the operating room and their potential impacts on patient safety. According to Dr. Daniel White, electronic distractions in the operating room are reaching “epidemic levels.” The combination of natural and electronic distractions are making both communication and concentration, which are key for performing a successful surgery, extremely difficult.

In particular, anesthesiologists need to have perfect timing and focus in order to perform their duties correctly, meaning that any small distraction could become a huge problem. The doctors on the panel compared the duties of an anesthesiologist to those of a pilot, and suggest that the “sterile cockpit” rules that pilots use should be followed by surgeons and anesthesiologists. According to Dr. Dwight Burney, “the sterile cockpit means that no tasks are to be undertaken by the flight crew during the critical phases of taxi, takeoff, and landing in any operation below 10,000 feet above ground level other than level flight and cruising.” Essentially, during these “critical phases,” the pilot’s complete focus should be on flying the plane and under no circumstances should he or she be doing anything else. He explains how “several articles in the anesthesia literature talk about the critical phases of anesthesia — induction and emergence — that are analogous to critical phases in aviation — take off and landing.” If these rules were to be adopted by surgeons, there would be no avoidable distraction, like cell phones, allowed during these phases of surgery.

This story has received a lot of buzz on the internet, and many people are wondering the same thing that I am: how was this allowed to go on for so long? Didn’t anyone notice him using his cell phone during surgery? Jan Mannino, in a comment on a Huffington Post article said, “as a long practicing nurse anesthetist, I am here to tell you that you can’t be playing on a cell phone and closely monitoring the patient at the same time. And to think he was billing for his anesthesia.” Joan Lemme commented, “And how long has this been going on? It was not obvious to the surgeon that he was using his cell phone? Sounds like many were ignoring it for some time.”

So why was it ignored? Well, the truth is that there are no laws banning cell phones during surgery. As a result, no one had any reason to speak up. Some individual hospitals, such as Torrence Memorial Medial Center in Los Angeles, have rules regarding cell phones in their hospitals. After an incident in 2009 where a staff member was caught taking pictures of a naked patient, the hospital made a rule prohibiting cell phones in all patient areas. With a higher prevalence of these incidents due to increased cell phone use, one has to wonder why these rules regarding cell phones have not yet been turned into laws. Perhaps this situation will be a wakeup call and we will finally see the necessary changes to these laws. While, thankfully, no patients were injured or killed as a result of Zilberstein’s actions, he compromised their safety and was completely inappropriate. If something had happened, Zilberstein and Swedish Medical Center could have been looking at a huge malpractice suit costing them millions of dollars. Technology is advancing, and the laws need to keep up.

—

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 [Pro Juventute 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 Sexting Anesthesiologist’s License Suspended appeared first on Law Street.