Will Vance v. Ball State Rewrite Harassment Law?

In 2016, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision in Will Vance v. Ball State University that could have significant implications for future harassment cases. Vance, a former Ball State employee, alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment by one of his supervisors. The court’s decision in the case could have implications for how courts interpret and apply harassment law in the future. In this article, we will explore the Vance decision and its potential impact on harassment law.

Background

The case involved allegations of racial harassment and discrimination against Vance, who worked as a black catering assistant at Ball State University. Vance claimed that a coworker, Saundra Davis, had racially harassed him and that his supervisor, Sherri Bucher, had failed to take adequate action to prevent the harassment.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Vance was notable because it marked a departure from previous court rulings regarding the definition of a “supervisor” in harassment cases. In Vance, the court limited the definition of supervisor to those who have the power to hire, fire, promote, demote, or transfer an employee. The court ruled that Bucher did not meet this definition and therefore, the university could not be held liable for her actions or inaction.

Impact on Harassment Law

The Vance decision potentially narrows the standard for holding employers liable for harassment in the workplace. This is because the employer is only liable for harassment that occurs under the direct control of a supervisor who has the ability to make employment decisions. By narrowing this definition, the decision makes it more difficult for employees who experience harassment to hold their employers accountable.

However, it also provides clarity on the issue of who qualifies as a supervisor in harassment cases. The narrower definition is expected to provide more objective parameters for assessing the liability of an employer in a harassment case.

Conclusion

The Vance decision has the potential to significantly impact harassment law by narrowing the definition of supervisors in harassment cases. While it may make it more difficult for employees to establish employer liability for harassment, it may also provide clarity and objective parameters for assessing such liability. The decision underscores the importance of employers to have a clear policy against workplace harassment and to provide training to their employees on how to prevent and report harassment. It also highlights the need for the broader discussion and possible reforms of harassment law to better address the range of forms that harassment can take in the modern workplace.

American workers have had the ability to sue for harassment based on race or gender for decades now.  However, questions remain about how much culpability employers can have for the conduct of the employees working for them.  A new court case, Vance v. Ball State University, will put these questions to the test in next year’s Supreme Court docket.  If the lower court rulings are affirmed, it could become significantly harder for women and racial minorities to sue their employers for harassment.

Maetta Vance, a black woman, began to work at Ball State University in Indiana in 1989.  She worked in the dining services department as a substitute server, and was the only black person who worked in the department at that time.

Vance started being treated differently from other employees when a new supervisor was employed by the university.  While this was not the person with hiring and firing authority over Vance, the supervisor, Bill Kimes, was in charge of regulating her day to day conduct on the job.  He treated her unfairly, treating other employees to lunch but only when Vance wasn’t there, and giving her “the cold shoulder.”

In 2005, this treatment escalated into outright racial harassment.  Racial epithets were hurled at Vance by her co-workers, who also stared at her for extended periods of time.  One co-worker also openly discussed her family’s association with the Ku Klux Klan.  She was disciplined by a supervisor with a written warning.

The racial harassment continued for some time, and involved repeated derogatory terms.  Vance sued, also alleging that Ball State had discriminated against her for speaking out by forcing her to do menial kitchen tasks when she was trained to be able to handle significantly more complex tasks.

At the trial court level, the judge ruled that Ball State had taken appropriate corrective action with its employees, and that the university could not be held liable for its employees conduct if the employee was not a direct supervisor.  While Kimes was the supervisor of Vance’s day to day activities, the court ruled that under the law, only conduct by a supervisor with hiring and firing authority could be used as justification for a judgment against the school.

The appeals court affirmed this decision, also ruling that there was not sufficient evidence that Ball State had retaliated against Vance when it assigned her different job duties.

The case will be heard by the Supreme Court during the 2013 season, and it stands to be an interesting one: three other circuit courts have ruled that employees may collect in a harassment action against their employer even if the person responsible for the harassment was not a supervisor with direct hiring and firing authority.

When the Supreme Court rules on this case, judicial onlookers will have a better idea of how this court intends to handle racial and sexual harassment lawsuits.  Due to the sharp ideological divisions in the court currently, opinions are divided as to how the court will likely rule in Vance v. Ball State.

Sources: uscourts.gov, supremecourt.gov

Defense Policy Changes Put Women in Combat

In a historic decision, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) announced in 2015 that it would be opening all military positions to women, including those in combat units. This decision marked a significant shift in US defense policy and paved the way for women to serve in previously male-dominated combat roles. In this article, we will explore the changes in defense policy that have allowed women to serve in combat and the impact of these changes.

Background

Before the DoD’s policy changes, women were prohibited from serving in direct combat roles, such as infantry, armor, and special operations forces. However, women have been serving in the military in increasing numbers since the 1970s, with many serving in support roles.

Changes in Defense Policy

In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the exclusion of women from certain combat positions would be lifted. This policy change was the result of a three-year review process by the DoD. The review concluded that female service members had already been serving in harm’s way, and that opening all positions to women would improve military effectiveness.

In 2015, then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that the DoD would be opening all positions in the military to women, including those in combat units. Carter emphasized that the policy changes were based on the idea that every job in the military should be open to anyone who is qualified and capable of performing it.

Impact of the Policy Changes

The policy changes have had a significant impact on the military and on gender roles in general. Since the changes, women have been able to join previously all-male combat units, attend infantry officer training, and compete for positions in special operations forces.

The changes have also increased opportunities for women in the military and have helped to break down gender barriers. According to a study by the RAND Corporation, opening all military positions to women could increase women’s representation in the military and improve talent management.

However, some have raised concerns about the physical and psychological demands of combat roles and the potential impact on military readiness. These concerns have led to ongoing discussions about the standards for combat roles and the training required for women to meet those standards.

Conclusion

The defense policy changes that have allowed women to serve in combat units represent a significant shift in US military policy. The changes have increased opportunities for women in the military, improved talent management, and broken down gender barriers. However, ongoing discussions about standards and training requirements show that there is still work to be done to ensure that women are able to serve in combat roles safely and effectively.

As of 2013, women in all five branches of the United States military will be allowed to officially serve in combat roles and be paid accordingly.  Last year, several women’s organizations filed lawsuits over Department of Defense policies that continued to forbid women from being considered combat troops.

In total, approximately 237,000 combat based jobs that were not previously available to women have been opened up to them this February.  The Department of Defense is planning to integrate these combat units using similar tactics to when the United States Navy began allowing women to serve on submarine missions.

According to Defense officials, the department is engaged in a continuing process this year to stop gender discrimination and barriers to women serving in combat roles and other non-traditional gender roles.

Proponents of these changes have pointed to the fact that while women were not previously allowed to be considered combat troops, thousands of female soldiers have already become casualties in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In contemporary urban warfare, the lines between combat troops and auxiliary or support troops are very blurred.  It was often impossible for women to avoid being in the line of fire, even if they were not considered to be combat troops, yet they did not receive the same pay or benefits as active combat troops.

Because combat roles also tend to have a bigger effect on promotions, women in the military had complained that they felt they were being kept from advancing by the no-women policy for combat troops.  This created something of a glass ceiling in military branches, where it became much easier for men to be promoted than women with similar skills and capabilities.  With the new policy in place, women will be better able to pursue positions in the military that would help them to advance their career in the long term.

The new policy raises a number of interesting legal questions.  Perhaps the biggest is what will become of the Selective Service, or draft, system.  Currently, only males are required to register for Selective Service.  When this policy has been challenged by women’s organizations, the Supreme Court has said that it was fair because only men could be combat troops.

Now that women are allowed in combat, the biggest reason judges have cited for keeping women out of the draft is gone.  No case has yet been filed regarding the Selective Service issue since the Defense decision.

Source: defense.gov, whitehouse.gov

New Contraception Laws for Religious Employers

Recent changes in healthcare law have sparked controversy and debate over the issue of contraception coverage for women. The issue has been particularly contentious for religious employers who object to providing contraception coverage on religious grounds. In this article, we will explore the new contraception laws for religious employers and the implications of these laws.

Background

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed in 2010, required employers to provide their employees with health insurance that included coverage for contraceptives. However, this requirement faced legal challenges from religious employers who argued that providing contraception coverage violated their religious beliefs. The US Supreme Court ultimately sided with the religious employers in two cases, ruling that they could be exempted from the contraceptive coverage requirement.

New Contraception Laws

In 2017, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing federal agencies to take action to protect the religious freedom of employers. The order directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue new rules giving employers more flexibility to deny contraceptive coverage on religious or moral grounds.

In response, the HHS issued new rules in 2018 that allowed employers with religious or moral objections to contraception to be exempted from the requirement to provide such coverage to their employees. Under the new rules, employers could choose to offer coverage only for a limited number of contraceptive methods or could choose not to offer coverage at all.

Implications

The new contraception laws have significant implications for women’s access to birth control. According to the National Women’s Law Center, the new rules could affect millions of women who rely on employer-sponsored health plans for their contraceptive coverage. The rules could also undermine the effectiveness of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement by allowing employers to pick and choose which methods of contraception to cover.

The new rules have also sparked criticism from advocates for women’s rights and religious liberty. Critics argue that the rules prioritize the religious beliefs of employers over the healthcare needs of employees and could lead to discrimination against women who seek contraceptive coverage.

Conclusion

The new contraception laws for religious employers represent a controversial shift in healthcare policy. The rules give religious employers more leeway to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees and could have significant implications for women’s access to birth control. The debate over the issue shows no signs of abating, with ongoing lawsuits and political battles highlighting conflicting views on the role of religion in healthcare policy.

One of the most controversial provisions of the new Affordable Care Act legislation (commonly known as Obamacare) is its requirement for insurance companies and employers to provide contraceptive coverage as part of health insurance plans.  According to the rules set forth in the Affordable Care Act, preventative women’s health services, including both hormonal and non-hormonal birth control, must be provided to women free from charges including co-pays.

However, one set of employers has rebelled against the new laws.  Employers who have religious objections—both for profit and not for profit employers—have sued in federal court to prevent enforcement of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act requiring contraceptive coverage.

As of January 2013, the White House announced a new way to solve the controversial issue.  Since religious organizations claim that their objection is based in having to actually pay for the contraceptive coverage, the government is now requiring insurers to cover contraceptive coverage separately, and at no cost, for anyone who has an employer paid healthcare plan.

In order for an organization to qualify for being exempt from paying for contraceptive coverage itself, it must meet a three-part test.  The current law requires that to be considered primarily religious, the organization must have a main purpose of advancing religion, primarily employ people who believe in the religion, and primarily serve people who believe in the religion.  This means that many organizations that are religious—for example, a Catholic hospital—might not be able to seek an exemption from contraception coverage under the new rule.

According to most analyses, insurers find contraception coverage to be cost neutral or even positive.  This is because childbirth, pregnancy, and infancy are extremely expensive, and preventing pregnancy until parents are ready for childbearing and parenthood eventually saves a great deal of money for insurers.

Not all employers are happy with the new proposal.  Some Catholic employers have already expressed a desire to fight the law, saying that the effect is similar to if they had paid for the contraception coverage themselves.

Student health insurance is also impacted by the new policy.  According to new guidelines, religious non profit institutions of higher education may apply for accommodations according to the law in the same way that an employer could.  This will ensure that even students at religious universities—like Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, thrust into the spotlight in the 2012 election season—have access to the same contraceptives that women at public schools can access.

Source: cms.gov

Thousands Rally in Paris for Marriage Equality

In recent years, the issue of marriage equality has sparked contentious debate in many parts of the world. In France, the issue has been the subject of intense public discourse and activism, with supporters rallying to demand equal rights for same-sex couples. In this article, we will explore the recent rally in Paris for marriage equality and the implications of the ongoing movement.

Background

France legalized same-sex marriage in 2013 under then-President François Hollande. The move was celebrated as a victory for LGBTQ+ rights and was seen as a major step forward for marriage equality in Europe. However, the passage of the law was met with significant opposition from conservative groups and the Catholic Church.

Since its passage, the law has continued to be a divisive issue in France. In recent years, the issue of marriage equality has been pushed to the forefront of public discourse, with activists and advocates working to ensure that all couples have equal access to marriage and its benefits.

Thousands Rally for Marriage Equality

On October 16, 2021, thousands of people gathered in Paris to demand marriage equality for same-sex couples. The rally, organized by several LGBTQ+ groups, called for the government to take action to ensure that same-sex couples have the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples.

Participants in the rally held signs and banners reading “Equality for All” and “Love is Love.” The mood was celebratory and joyous, with many participants expressing hope that the rally would send a clear message to the government and to society as a whole.

Implications

The rally for marriage equality in Paris reflects a growing movement for LGBTQ+ rights in France. The issue of marriage equality has been the subject of intense debate and activism in recent years, and the rally is a testament to the dedication and persistence of advocates and supporters.

The rally also has broader implications for the fight for LGBTQ+ rights around the world. France has long been seen as a leader in the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights, and the rally highlights the ongoing progress being made in the fight for equal rights and protections for all.

Conclusion

The rally for marriage equality in Paris is a powerful reminder of the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ rights in France and around the world. The event reflects a growing movement of activists and advocates who are committed to ensuring that all couples have equal access to marriage and its benefits. As the fight for marriage equality and other LGBTQ+ rights continues, rallies like this one serve as a source of inspiration and hope for future progress.

Thousands marched in the streets of Paris on Sunday to show their support for a pending same-sex marriage bill that lawmakers will debate on Tuesday.

Demonstrators were fervent in their support for the bill—they were waving banners with phrases like “Equality of rights is not a threat” and perpetually chanted: “What do want? Equality! When do you want it? Now!”

According to Parisian police, the demonstration attracted nearly 125,000 people or twice the number that participated in a similar demonstration in mid-December. That said, a rally by those opposing the proposal attracted 340,000 people two weeks ago in Paris.

Socialist President, Francois Hollande, promised during his campaign to legalize gay marriage by May of 2013. It is believed, that with majorities in the both houses of Parliament, that the President may just fulfill this promise. Even with the expected legislative delays, the bill could be placed into law as early as May of this year.

The equality demonstration was an eclectic bunch, as thousands traveled from all over France to show their support of the bill. Nicloas Marquart, 37, made the trip with Strasobourg with his partner, whom he shares a “civil solidarity pact” with. Marquart told the New York Times, that he came to the demonstration as a “gay man and because it would be nice to see our morals evolve.”

The prospective law would fundamentally redefine marriage as a union contracted between two individuals of different sex or of the same sex. Moreover, the words “mother” and “father” in the existing legislation would be replaced by “parents.” The pending bill also would permit married same-sex couples to adopt children.

The minister of justice, Christiane Taubira, claims that the law, known as Marriage for All would provide  uniform regardless of sexual orientation. The law would also leave the conditions of marriage unchanged.

The French community, who is taught that every citizen has equal rights, generally supports legalizing gay marriage. According to national polls, roughly 63 percent of French citizens are in favor of same-sex marriage and 40 percent favor the right of adoption among gay married couples.

Opponents to the bill, including senior Roman Catholic, Muslin and Jewish leaders, claim that by replacing mother and father with “parents”, the law unequivocally changes the natural order of procreation. These religious leaders say that this alteration will lead to moral confusion and the eventual erosion of the centuries-old institution of marriage in the name of a minority group.

The Financial Argument for Gay Marriage

Gay marriage has been a topic of discussion for many years. While the decision to allow gay couples the right to wed is a question of equality, there is also a strong financial argument for its legalization.

The Economic Benefits of Marriage

Marriage is an economic institution, and it brings forth numerous benefits for individuals and society as a whole. For starters, married couples can pool their resources together, which can help them achieve financial stability and reduce their living expenses. This can be especially helpful for gay couples who may have been living apart and paying more for individual living expenses.

Furthermore, marriage provides a legal framework for the distribution of assets in the event of a divorce or death of a spouse. This can help prevent financial abuse and protect the rights of both parties in the marriage.

Tax Benefits

Marriage also comes with significant tax benefits. Couples who are married can file their taxes jointly, which often results in a lower tax bill than if they were filing as individuals. This can save gay couples significant amounts of money, and it is an argument that advocates of gay marriage have frequently used.

Many governments are already reaping the benefits of tax revenue from same-sex marriage. In states where gay marriage is legal, there has been a surge in economic activity, and more people are now willing to invest in the state due to the apparent openness of the state to its citizens.

Cost Savings for Society

Society as a whole can also benefit from the legalization of gay marriage. When gay couples marry, they can become dependents of each other for things such as medical insurance and other social services. This limits the burden of the costs of these services on society, which can help provide financial relief for all taxpayers.

Moreover, the legalization of gay marriage will benefit the economy by reducing the amount of money spent on legal issues such as inheritance, divorce, and custody battles. This can help reduce the backlog of cases that clog up the court system, resulting in higher efficiency and less waiting time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the legalization of gay marriage will not only be a moral victory, but it will also have financial benefits that reverberate throughout the economy. Governments at all levels should take note of these benefits and take measures to legalize gay marriage. It is not just a matter of fairness and equality, but a question of economic good sense.

With several key November wins in Maine, Maryland and Washington State, advocates for gay marriage have been achieving a lot of national success lately. Feeding on this momentum, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota and Rhode Island are looking to recognize equality for the LGBT community.

Arguments for legalizing gay marriage typically center on justice, but there’s a financial claim to be made for marriage equality. Consider, for instance, the state of Illinois, where dozens of businesses have publicly declared support for the legalization of gay marriage.

In a public letter, signed by business leaders from Groupon, GOOGLE, Hyatt Hotels, Orbitz Worldwide, Navistar International, Morningstar and Excelon among others, key executives stated that to be competitive, Illinois must create equitable and respectful environments for all of its citizens.

The letter makes the case that supporting marriage equality helps businesses attract a wide range of employees, which, in turn, helps companies better connect with a more diversified consumer base. The letter also cited financial numbers that supported the idea of legalizing gay marriage. The letter stated: “According to the UCLA School of Law’s William Institute, allowing same-sex couples to marry would generate between $39 million and $72 million in revenue for Illinois businesses, creating $4.5 million to $8 million in new sales and lodging tax revenues over three years.”

Several companies, such as Macy’s and J.C. Penny, aren’t waiting for lawmakers to pass gay marriage laws. These retail giants have featured same-sex couples in advertisements, while other businesses, such as Nike, Amazon.com, Starbucks and Microsoft, have donated money or issued support statements to marriage advocacy groups.

American companies are catching-on the financial advantages of legalizing gay marriage, as noted by the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, which measures the nation’s largest company’s on their equal opportunity policies, organizational LGBT competency, employee benefits and public commitment to corporate citizenship. This index only gave 13 companies top marks in its first survey in 2002—a far cry from the 189 companies receiving top marks in last year’s survey.

As support continues to grow, widespread legalization of gay marriage seems inevitable in the United States. Public opinion polls reflect this growth in support: recent studies by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute reported a 10 percent gain in support in Illinois in just the past two years. Furthermore, a USA Today poll taken in November shows national support at 53 percent, which is up 13 percentage points from 2009.

Boy Scouts of America to End Ban on Gays?

For many years, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have been known for their strict policies and conservative values. One of their most controversial policies has been their ban on gay members and leaders. However, recent reports suggest that the BSA may be considering ending this ban. This development has sparked debate and controversy across the country.

Background

The BSA’s ban on gay members and leaders has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. The policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000, but many have called for its repeal in recent years, citing changing social attitudes towards sexuality and gender identity.

In 2013, the BSA made a significant change to their policy, when they lifted the ban on gay youth members. However, the ban on gay adult leaders remains in place.

Possible End to the Ban

Reports in early 2021 indicate that the BSA may be considering ending the ban on gay adult leaders. It is not yet clear what form this change might take, but it is a significant move towards greater equality and inclusion.

Arguments for the End of the Ban

There are many arguments in favor of ending the ban on gay members and leaders in the BSA. One of the most compelling is that it is a matter of basic human rights and equality. No one should be denied the opportunity to participate in an organization based on their sexual orientation.

Another argument is that ending the ban would help to modernize the BSA and make it more relevant to younger generations. Young people today are more accepting of diversity and less likely to be swayed by outdated ideas of gender and sexuality.

Finally, many believe that ending the ban would be good for the BSA itself. By becoming more inclusive, the organization would be able to attract new members and leaders who may have been put off by its previous policies.

Opposing Views

Of course, not everyone supports the idea of ending the ban on gay members and leaders in the BSA. Some argue that it violates the organization’s core values and religious beliefs. Others worry about the potential for conflict or controversy within the organization and among its members.

Conclusion

The possible end of the BSA’s ban on gay members and leaders is a significant step towards greater inclusion and equality. It is a controversial issue that will continue to spark debate and discussion in the coming months and years. However, the move towards greater acceptance and diversity is a positive trend that should be embraced by all.

The Boy Scouts of America may end its longstanding policy of banning homosexual scouts and scout leaders, the organization said in a press release on Monday.

The proposed policy would effectively eliminate the ban on fays from the association’s national charter, subsequently allowing local chapters to decide on the inclusion of gay scouts and scout leaders for themselves.

“Boy Scouts of America is discussing to potentially remove the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation,” said Deron Smith, a spokesman for the association. The proposed rule change would mean that the association would no longer operate under any national policy concerning sexual orientation. The decision on including gay participation would be overseen and delivered by individual chartered organizations.

The century-old Dallas-based organization represents 290 local charters and in excess of 116,000 local organizations, with a total membership of 2.6 million youth members.

The rule change would allow parents to then decide a local unit which best fits the needs of their families. The policy alteration would allow the civic, religious or educational organizations that deliver and oversee scouting to determine how to address the issue of gay membership.

The new policy, which could be decided-on as early as next week, would represent a public reversal of policy for an organization that recently rejected cries for change. In 2012, following internal investigations on the inclusion of homosexual membership, the association’s executive board issued a statement affirming the ban, claiming it was in the organization’s best interest. This decision ultimately forced the resignation of gay scout leaders and the denial of an Eagle Award to a California high-school senior who had recently come out to his family and friends. The decision also prompted a response from the White House, which said President Barack Obama strongly opposed the association’s ban on gay inclusion.

The statement issued by the White House said that President Obama “opposes discrimination in all forms and as such opposes this policy that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.”

According to various media outlets, some of the association’s board members urged the Boy Scouts of America. This sentiment came swiftly after some sponsoring organizations withdrew financial support of the group solely because of the ban.

In response to the ban, change.org petitions opposing the exclusion have collected over 1.2 million signatures and according to various media outlets, at least 350 Eagle Scouts returned their pins in protest of the stance.

Rhode Island – The Next Frontier for Gay Rights?

For many years, Rhode Island has been at the forefront of the struggle for LGBT rights. From the early days of the AIDS epidemic to the recent fights over marriage equality and transgender bathroom rights, Rhode Islanders have been on the front lines of the fight for equality and justice. Today, Rhode Island is once again poised to take a leading role in the struggle for gay rights.

Background

Rhode Island has a long history of activism and advocacy for gay rights. In 1999, the state passed legislation that added sexual orientation to the list of protected categories under their hate crimes statute. In 2011, Rhode Island became the eighth state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage.

Today, Rhode Island is home to a vibrant LGBT community, with many advocacy organizations, support groups, and social events for LGBT people and their allies.

Proposed Changes to the Law

Recently, lawmakers in Rhode Island introduced legislation that would make the state’s hate crimes statute even more inclusive. The proposed changes would add gender identity and expression to the list of protected categories, in addition to sexual orientation. This would make Rhode Island one of the most LGBT-friendly states in the country, with some of the strongest protections for LGBT people in law.

Supporters of the proposed changes argue that they are necessary to protect LGBT people from discrimination and violence. They point to the high levels of violence and harassment faced by transgender people in particular, and argue that the law needs to do more to protect them.

Opposing Views

Not everyone is supportive of the proposed changes, however. Some argue that the law is unnecessary, or that it will infringe on their religious or moral beliefs. Others worry that the changes will lead to a chilling effect on free speech, or that they will open the door to frivolous or malicious lawsuits.

Conclusion

Regardless of the outcome of the proposed changes, Rhode Island is clearly one of the most progressive and inclusive states in the country when it comes to LGBT rights. Its long history of activism and advocacy, combined with its relatively small size and tight-knit communities, make it an ideal place for LGBT people to call home. Rhode Island’s leadership in the fight for gay rights is a source of pride and inspiration for LGBT people everywhere.

As marriage equality signs and posters lined the park fences at the 2012 Providence Pride Festival, many supporters for gay marriage rights grew confident that the passing of a marriage equality referendum would come soon.

Rhode Island—the only state in New England that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage—is seemingly on its way to passing a referendum that would make marriage possible for all. On January 24th of this year, the Rhode Island House of Representatives passed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in an overwhelming tally of 51 to 19.

Hopes for passing the referendum are bolstered by Gordon Fox, the democratic speaker for the house, who happens to be gay. Moreover, Lincoln Chafee, the independent Governor of the state, is also a strong supporter of gay rights. The dominoes are surely in place, but the passage is seemingly far from affirmation.

Dissimilar to New York, where democrats tirelessly worked for months to fight-off Republican push-back, proponents in Rhode Island must urge the Democratic Party to continue its momentum with the bill.

The biggest problem Rhode Island faces is simple: Teresa Paiva-Weed, the President of the State Senate, Michel McCaffrey, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Dominick Ruggerio, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are all Democrats who oppose gay marriage.

Paiva-Weed recently appeared on a local news program following the passing of the bill in the house and promised, “A fair debate in the Senate.” So, although the bill is stuck in an odd state of flux, the fact that leading opponents are open for debate is a step forward for supporters, who were stymied in the past by the Senate’s refusal to negotiate or even consider legalization.

Another issue complicating the state’s gay marriage campaign is the looming prospect of Supreme Court involvement. The prospective ruling will involve California’s Proposition 8, which may apply only narrowly to California, but may also end with a broader decision that would affect other state marriage laws. If the court rules that the 14th Amendment prohibits the state of California from defining marriage as a union between a man and woman, then other state laws would be at significant risk.

Rhode Island supporters of the legislation are emphasizing the financial impact of gay marriage and the added effect of standing alone in the region—the lack of gay marriage laws in Rhode Island puts the state at a regional competitive disadvantage.

The bulk of Democratic opposition comes from devout Catholics like McCaffrey and Paiva-Weed. Catholics have exhibited a particularly strong political influence in the state of Rhode Island for generations; however, gay marriage is a matter that seems to carry transcendent evolutionary features.

Paiva-Weed claims that it could take months for the Senate to address the issue, but the inner-debate among the opposition is a constant struggle. v

49ers Football Player Takes Aggressive Stance towards Gay Men: The Controversial Statements made by Chris Culliver

Introduction

Chris Culliver, a cornerback for the San Francisco 49ers, caused a stir when he made a series of inflammatory comments regarding gay men in the NFL. Culliver’s remarks sparked outrage from many in the LGBT community, as well as from fans and fellow players.

Background

Culliver made the comments in the lead-up to the 2013 Super Bowl. When asked if he would be accepting of a gay teammate, Culliver responded, “I don’t do the gay guys. I don’t do that. No, we don’t have any gay guys on the team. They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can’t be with that sweet stuff.”

Culliver’s comments were widely condemned by people across the country, including many of his own teammates and coaches. The 49ers issued a statement denouncing Culliver’s remarks, and the NFL pledged to work towards greater inclusion and acceptance of LGBT players.

Culliver’s Apology

In the aftermath of the controversy, Culliver issued a formal apology for his comments. He acknowledged that his statements were “hurtful and inexcusable,” and stated that he had learned from the experience and was committed to promoting tolerance and understanding.

Despite his apology, many people remained skeptical of Culliver’s sincerity. Some saw his comments as revealing a deeper hostility towards the LGBT community, while others felt that his apology was more of a public relations move than a genuine expression of remorse.

Impact on the NFL

The controversy surrounding Culliver’s comments was just one example of the ongoing struggle for greater inclusion and acceptance of LGBT people in the world of sports. While progress has certainly been made in recent years, the fact remains that many athletes still feel uncomfortable coming out as gay or lesbian, and there is a pervasive culture of homophobia in many locker rooms.

However, the backlash against Culliver’s remarks also demonstrated that there are many people within the NFL and the sports world as a whole who are committed to promoting tolerance and respect for all athletes, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Chris Culliver’s comments was a reminder that there is still much work to be done in the fight for LGBT rights, both in the world of sports and in society more broadly. However, it also showed that there are many people within the NFL and the larger sports community who are committed to promoting inclusion, understanding, and respect for all athletes, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver made inflammatory comments concerning gays in professional football just a few days prior to the biggest game of his life.

Shock jock and former Howard Stern sidekick, Artie Lange, revealed he had interviewed Culliver at media on Tuesday and aired a segment of the talk on his show that night. The clip reveals Culliver taking a strong stance towards gays in the NFL, going as far as saying they are not welcome.

“I don’t do the gay guys man,” said Culliver, whose San Francisco 49ers play the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday “No, we don’t got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if we do. That sweet stuff can’t be in our locker room man.”

When asked by Lange whether any homosexual athletes would need to conceal their sexuality in football, Culliver stated: “Yeah, come out 10 years after they done playing.”

In the NFL’s storied history, there has never been an openly homosexual active player. That said, the premise of gay football players has recently grabbed the national spotlight as the Manti Te’o girlfriend hoax saga was played-out on every national TV media outlet. Moreover, Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo is an outspoken supporter of equality for the gay community, going as far as using the reach of the Super Bowl to bring the issue further into the spotlight.

Because the sport is driven by testosterone, the sentiments expressed by Culliver are from novel. Few NFL players have even spoken on the issue of possible gay teammates. The situation is simply unspoken and judging by the few public comments offered by current and former players, this trend is here for the d discernible future.

Update: San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver apologized Wednesday night for the aforementioned comments towards the gay community.

Culliver told reporters, “The derogatory comments I made yesterday were a reflection of thoughts in my head, but they are not how I feel. Those discriminating feelings are truly not in my heart and I apologize to those who I have hurt and offended. I pledge to learn and grow from this experience.”

The insensitive comments Culliver made have sent shockwaves through San Francisco’s accepting community. The San Francisco 49ers participate in the NFL’s “It Gets Better” campaign—an initiative to educate the dangers of bullying and the mistreatment of the homosexual community.

North Dakota Woman Wins $3.35M in Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit: Johnson & Johnson Caused Severe Health Issues for Woman with Gyncare Prolift Vaginal Mesh

Introduction

A North Dakota woman has won a $3.35 million settlement in a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturers of the Gyncare Prolift vaginal mesh. The woman in question had suffered severe health issues due to the use of the product, which has led to a number of similar lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson in recent years.

Background

Vaginal mesh implants are medical devices that have been used for a variety of gynecological conditions, including pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Johnson & Johnson’s Gyncare Prolift mesh is one of the most widely used products of its kind, but it has been linked to a number of serious health issues and complications.

The North Dakota woman at the center of the lawsuit had been implanted with the Gyncare Prolift mesh to address a case of pelvic organ prolapse. However, she soon began experiencing severe pain, bleeding, and other complications. She underwent several surgeries to remove the mesh, but the damage had already been done.

The lawsuit alleged that Johnson & Johnson had failed to properly test the mesh before marketing it, and had also failed to adequately warn patients and doctors about the risks associated with the product. The jury ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $3.35 million in damages.

Impact on Johnson & Johnson

The settlement represents just one of many legal challenges that Johnson & Johnson has faced in recent years over its vaginal mesh products. Thousands of women across the country have filed lawsuits against the company for a variety of health issues and complications related to the use of the Gyncare Prolift mesh and other similar products.

While Johnson & Johnson has denied any wrongdoing, the lawsuits have taken a toll on the company’s reputation and financial standing. In total, the company has paid out billions of dollars in settlements and fines related to a range of different products, including vaginal mesh implants.

Conclusion

The settlement in the North Dakota vaginal mesh lawsuit is a reminder of the serious health risks associated with these products, as well as the importance of holding manufacturers accountable for the harm they cause. While Johnson & Johnson has attempted to downplay the risks associated with its vaginal mesh products, the increasing number of lawsuits and settlements suggests that patients and doctors are increasingly aware of their dangers. It is crucial that companies like Johnson & Johnson prioritize patient safety and transparency over profits, and that regulators work to ensure that these products are thoroughly tested and thoroughly vetted before they are made available to the public.

Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of a Gyncare Prolift vaginal mesh that is said to have had significant side effects for large numbers of women, have been ordered to pay $3.35M to a woman who was so badly hurt by the mesh that she required 18 total surgeries.

In spite of having had a large number of surgeries to remove the mesh and repair the damage that it caused, constant pain in the plaintiff’s pelvic region made it impossible for her to return to work.  The plaintiff in the case alleges that she was not told by anyone that the mesh could potentially cause significant and disabling side effects.

What’s more, according to the plaintiff’s attorneys, the transvaginal mesh implants that have caused so many problems for the plaintiff and women like her were not actually more effective statistically than non mesh alternatives.

Generally, vaginal mesh implants have been implanted to reduce complications from POP, or pelvic organ prolapse.  This occurs when weak muscles in the pelvic region allow the uterus and vagina to move downward with gravity and out of the positions that they belong in.  The condition can be very painful and debilitating, as well as embarrassing, causing incontinence and sensitivity as well as vulnerability to infection.

However, meshes have had significant side effects that have sometimes been worse than the pelvic organ prolapse condition they were designed to treat.  In fact, some women have had pain and bleeding associated with their mesh implants, or even increased incontinence.

Johnson & Johnson took the Gynecare implant off the market in 2008, but by then, thousands of women had already had the implant.  In total, over 300,000 women have had mesh implants surgically implanted to decrease the symptoms of POP.

The permanent nerve damage and scarring caused by the Gynecare implant and other transvaginal mesh implants has made these cases a favorite among personal injury attorneys.  The most recent verdict in New Jersey is just the latest in a series of damaging verdicts against major medical device manufacturers.

The FDA has warned several manufacturers of transvaginal mesh implants to take their devices off the market, and several, like Johnson & Johnson, have complied.  The $3.35 million verdict is only the total compensatory damages for the plaintiff.

Earlier this week, the judge in Atlantic City said that she wold also hear arguments for punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson.  This is in part because the company waited 9 months after being told that their product was deficient in several ways before withdrawing it from the market.

Source: www.judiciary.state.nj.us

UPS Driver Wins Six Figure Sex Discrimination Suit: Woman Awarded $600,000 After Enduring Extensive Discrimination

Introduction

A UPS driver from Odessa, Texas has won a six-figure settlement in a sex discrimination lawsuit against the company. The woman had been subjected to extensive discrimination and harassment on the job, but a jury ultimately found in her favor, recognizing the harm that had been done to her.

Background

The woman in question had worked as a UPS driver for more than a decade, but had been subjected to a variety of forms of discrimination and harassment during that time. This included being passed over for promotions and being subjected to derogatory comments and slurs from her male colleagues.

Despite her complaints to the company, little was done to address the situation. The woman ultimately filed a lawsuit against UPS, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation.

After a lengthy trial, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $600,000 in damages. The decision was met with hugs and congratulations from jurors, who had recognized the severity of the discrimination and harassment the woman had endured.

Impact on UPS

The verdict in the sex discrimination lawsuit is just one of many legal challenges that UPS has faced in recent years over its treatment of female employees. The company has come under fire for pay inequities, promotion disparities, and other forms of discrimination against women in the workplace.

While UPS has taken steps to address these issues, the lawsuit is a reminder that there is still much work to be done to create a truly inclusive and equitable workplace for women in the company and across the industry as a whole.

Conclusion

The settlement in the UPS sex discrimination lawsuit is a victory for the plaintiff and a reminder that inequality and discrimination have no place in the modern workplace. While progress has been made in recent years to address these issues, the case serves as a reminder that there is still much work to be done to create truly inclusive and equitable workplaces for all employees, regardless of their gender, race, or other identifying characteristics.

Jurors hugged an Odessa, Texas woman who had been subjected to extensive sex discrimination in her job as a UPS driver after delivering a $600,000 verdict in her favor.  Plaintiff Amber Ibarra was awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages after United Parcel Service failed to prevent sex discrimination in the workplace.

Ibarra’s lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began after she was fired from her position in 2009.  While the firing occurred after an accident in which Ibarra’s vehicle collided with a pole, Ibarra contended that other drivers had actually had more serious accidents without having been fired or otherwise seriously disciplined.  Jurors agreed with this assessment when awarding the verdict in the case.

Since becoming employed by the Fort Stockton UPS facility in 1996 as the facility’s only full-time female driver, Ibarra says she was subjected to an atmosphere that was consistently hostile toward women.  For example, one of Ibarra’s supervisors made lewd and suggestive comments to Ibarra repeatedly, as well as calling her names.

In 2008, Ibarra and two other female employees made an official complaint against the supervisor who had made their workplace a hostile work environment.  While the supervisor was fired as a result of the UPS investigation, Ibarra claims that the treatment that caused the complaint continued, just with other managers instead.  Managers made crude comments about women’s inability to work, including comments that they were unable to perform job duties because of their menstrual periods.

Ibarra says that as a result of her complaint, UPS tried to make her workload significantly more than the loads of male drivers.  When Ibarra became pregnant, one of the male managers remarked that he had been saving some packages for her.  She found that six 100 pound packages had been set aside for her to deliver extremely late at night.  Soon after, she was fired for an accident that she said would never have led to a male driver being fired.

Ibarra says that supervisors at UPS routinely made fun of women in the workplace and said that they preferred not to work around women, claiming that women were inherently weaker and less able to perform their job functions.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and when this discrimination is willful, employers can be subject to civil penalties and significant punitive damages.

Source: uscourts.gov