Clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch is no stranger to legal trouble due to its alleged discriminatory practices against both workers and customers. The brand came under fire for its refusal to hire a young woman in Oklahoma because she wore a religious head covering. On June 1, after much deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Samantha Elauf, the prospective employee who was denied a job because of her hijab.

Court rules in favour of Muslim woman who failed to get job after wearing scarf to interview http://t.co/wSiVAgsGvL pic.twitter.com/zagHX1Usdv

— The Independent (@Independent) June 2, 2015

Abercrombie is known for making clothing marketed toward young, preppy, attractive people. Many past employees have claimed that the company discriminated against them for their body type, religious practices, or race. The company has also been known to only market its clothing toward thinner people, as it refuses to make clothing for plus-sized women.

According to Politico, the company paid $50 million to Latino, African American, and Asian job applicants who claimed that there was a lack of diversity in the company. Elauf’s victory in this case has set a precedent for all future employers to follow, which will greatly benefit all potential employees.

In 2008, 17-year-old Elauf applied to Abercrombie & Fitch to work as a salesperson. She did not ask the company to make a religious accommodation for her headscarf during her interview with assistant manager Heather Cooke, and so she was not given the job for two reasons. Firstly, Abercrombie claims that Elauf’s headscarf violated its “look policy,” due to the fact that it was black and considered prohibited headwear, although Elauf claims that she was never informed of this exact policy during her interview. Secondly, Abercrombie also claims that it had no liability since Elauf never identified her headscarf as a religious garment and also because the company did not want to automatically assume that it was being worn for religious reasons so that it doesn’t stereotype any potential employees.

On behalf of Elauf, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal law enforcement agency, sued Abercrombie for discrimination. It was determined that the company did not actually discriminate against Elauf, although her rights were violated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Abercrombie also has since changed its policies, as now it allows its workers to wear headscarves if they choose to do so.

According to Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in the ruling, “an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” The Guardian  also reports that multiple other religious groups were in support of Elauf’s case.

This ruling is a major step forward in terms of workplace equality, as it helps to protect the rights of not only minorities, but all people. Companies now cannot deny employment to any potential worker due to his or her religious observances, which will in turn increase the amount of opportunities available for religious minorities. This court decision also has the potential to completely change how American society views equal opportunity, religious freedom, and workplace discrimination.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Muslim Women Against Abercrombie over Hijab appeared first on Law Street.

Tech startup Aereo continued to disrupt the market this week when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo Inc. case. The case has garnered lots of attention in the technology community due to the implications it may have on Cloud services. Essentially, Aereo provides an electronic antenna that picks up and broadcasts existing signals with the added bonus of being a virtual recorder and storage locker.  Aereo’s creation is brilliant, but as seems to be the case with many such tech developments, it may have outpaced current laws and policy.

Broadcasting companies believe copyrighted content is illegally transmitted through the internet from Aereo to Aereo’s paying subscribers. Companies such as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS allege that the company is publicly performing by transmitting content without proper licensing and payment of royalty fees — a violation of intellectual property laws.

Broadcast Companies are using the 1976 Copyright Act definition of transmission to prove that Aereo’s transmission of content is a public performance, while Aereo’s customers are private performers. This distinction is important because private performances are exempt from obtaining licenses and paying fees for copyrighted content, while public performances are not.  Paul Clement, the attorney working on behalf of the broadcast company petitioners, recognizes that a person or company that sells traditional antennas would not be involved in a public performance; however, he asserts that Aereo’s use of ongoing services, even if considered a rented service, exploits the use of copyrighted works and therefore represents a public performance and a violation of the Copyright Act.

In response to questions from Justices Alito and Kennedy about the difference between Aereo’s services and the DVR service provided by companies like CableVision, Clement responded that unlike Aereo, CableVision acquired licenses to receive their content in the first place. Because CableVision’s customers are recording and storing content for private use that the company was given permission to transmit, CableVision’s DVR service was rightfully excluded from obtaining a reproduction license. Aereo did not obtained permission to access the content that they allow their customers to stream, record, and store.

The use of Aereo allows its customers to only view local over-the-air broadcasts, the signals for which are free to the public, which makes the sale and private use of antennas to disseminate these broadcasts a lawful act. Aereo asserts that they are not publicly performing because they are equipment providers, no different than a company that sells antennas. This equipment provides access to free, public content, which is different from providing content in the first place. Aereo attorney David Frederick cited Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios as precedent for the lawful use of Aereo’s DVR service. The Sony decision held that consumers have the right to record local over-the-air broadcasts for private use. Since Aereo is renting equipment that provides access to free local content, the company argues that they’re not in violation of the Copyright Act.

What is bothersome to Aereo, and potentially problematic to Cloud service, is the interpretation of the Copyright Act’s Transmission Clause. Aereo believes that the petitioners’ interpretation qualifies any device or process disseminating works to the public, as a public performance, thereby requiring licenses and payment of royalties, which could be detrimental to cloud computing. Clement; however, was clear on the subject of cloud computing and doesn’t believe a decision in his clients’ favor should threaten that technology’s future.

Whether anyone believes that a decision against Aereo should threaten Cloud’s future or not is irrelevant — the more important question is, could it be applied when considering cloud computing? I’m not sure how the Supreme Court will rule, but I do believe this decision will affect cloud computing no matter the outcome.

Aereo is the twenty-first century solution to the discontinued use of antennas and VCRs. If the Supreme Court rules in its favor, Aereo could build on its existing technology and become an entity more comparable to a cable company, at which time they should be responsible for proper licensing and adherence to copyright laws. Technology is constantly changing and challenging older, more established technologies and industries — this is exactly what drives continued innovation. A ruling against Aereo would stifle this innovative growth.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Fagen via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aereo Technology Drives Innovation, But How Will SCOTUS Rule? appeared first on Law Street.

So let me drop a lyric: “I meet aggression with aggression, I learned that on the streets” by 50 Cent. What does this lyric conjure?

Let us all admit that when we hear rap lyrics like this one, not all of us automatically get a warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts. In fact, many rappers are criticized for producing overly aggressive lyrics about controversial topics; the objectification of women; and violent threats towards individuals who have wronged them. Most of us consider the lyrics of rappers to be more of a style choice — the way in which they want to market themselves to their prospective audience rather than an autobiographical representation. But now a question: Have you ever considered the rap lyrics coming through your headphones to be a confession to a crime? The United States Court System has.

In the past several years, rap lyrics have been used against the accused as evidence to support their criminal actions. In 2013, it was found by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey that in 18 cases, rap lyrics were considered as possible evidence and were used in trial 80 percent of the time. When these rap lyrics are shared in court, it can be detrimental to the accused. 

A study conducted in the late 1990s explored if rap lyrics used during a trial swayed jurors’ opinions. Participants were given basic biographical information about a hypothetical 18-year-old black male, and some were shown a set of his explicit rap lyrics. Those who read the lyrics were significantly more likely to believe that the hypothetical accused would have committed a violent crime.

This bias regarding artists who express themselves through rap lyrics has repeatedly displayed itself in court, stirring debate as to whether these lyrics should be used as a form of evidence.  It is doubtful that when Vonte Skinner first wrote the lyrics, “Look in my palms. You can see what I’m gunnin with,” he would foresee their use against him in court. However, Skinner was placed on trial in 2008 for possible involvement in the shooting of Lamont Peterson in 2005. Skinner, also known by his rap name Threat, was found guilty after the prosecution read 13 pages of his violent lyrics — similar to those mentioned above. It is speculated that these lyrics have contributed to the charge and conviction against Vonte for attempted murder. This conviction was later overturned on appeal, and will be officially decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in March.

This case presents the idea that rap lyrics can be used to misrepresent the accused as a horrible or violent person. In reality, Skinner’s lyrics were written long before the shooting and subsequent paralysis of Lamont. In fact, the lyrics did not mention the victim or even specific details regarding the crime. Thus, lyrics can be used when minimal evidence is available, in order to turn the tides of a case. This exact situation occurred again when Los Angeles rapper Lil Boosie was accused of paying a hit man, Mike Loudon to shoot and kill Terry Boyd in 2009. With no physical evidence linking Boosie to the crime, prosecutors built their case around his rap lyrics. Despite the objections of the defense attorney, prosecutors went ahead and presented lyrics from songs such as “Bodybag,” claiming it was a representation of evidence to tie Boosie to the murder. Luckily, the jurors were not convinced by the lyrics. While Lil Boosie escaped conviction and Vonte Skinner will have a second chance through the Supreme Court, the issue becomes whether courts should be allowed to utilize rap lyrics as evidence.

Many believe that this “alternative form of evidence” should not be considered evidence at all. As a genre, rap is a form of entertainment, one that uses exaggerative and figurative language. Often rappers use lyrics as a form of artistic expression and this is how we should view them. Instead of taking rap for what it is — an art form — prosecutors present the lyrics of rappers as an autobiographical expression or admission to illegal behavior. Defense attorneys often object to the use of lyrics, as courts typically do not allow the presentation of evidence meant to damage a defendant when it is not directly related to a crime. However, the presiding judge over a case has the ultimate decision and rap seems to have become an exception, as many judges have allowed the use of rap in court.

Then why do rap lyrics keep presenting themselves in court? The rap industry has become synonymous with criminality, as more and more artists are going on trial and lyrics become more explicit. To this extent, it is less than surprising that musicians find their own lyrics used against them. However, the courts should find stronger evidence to tie an accused to the crime rather than obscure lyrics taken out of context. Why would anyone willingly incriminate themselves? Clearly, just because a lyric is violent, does not mean it is a confession to illegal activity. The hearing of Skinner’s case in the Supreme Court can turn the tides for rappers, and possibly end the use of lyrics as evidence in trial.

[New York Times] [North Carolina Criminal Law] [The Roott]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Susanne Davidson via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Rap Lyrics Represent an Admission of Guilt? appeared first on Law Street.