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 Young people today are more accepting of diversity and less likely to be swayed by outdated ideas of gender and sexuality.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

Percentage of Women on Law Reviews Declines Significantly

Law reviews, scholarly journals published by law schools, serve as a platform for legal scholarship and commentary. Among the many challenges faced by law reviews, gender equality in authorship has been of increasing concern. A recent study by the Women in Law Empowerment Forum (WILEF) found that the percentage of women authors on law reviews has declined significantly. In this article, we will explore the findings of the study and discuss potential reasons for this decline.

Findings of the Study

The study conducted by WILEF involved 17 law schools and looked at the authorship gender gap of articles published in their school’s flagship law review over a four-year period. The results of the survey revealed a significant decline in the percentage of women authors. In 2016, 46.8% of authors were women. This percentage declined to 42.5% in 2017, 39.0% in 2018, and 37.1% in 2019.

Reasons for the Decline

Several factors may be contributing to the declining percentage of women authors on law reviews. One factor may be unconscious biases, where editors may be more likely to accept articles from authors who resemble them in terms of gender. Another potential factor is the lack of mentorship opportunities for female law students and young lawyers, as some older male lawyers may be reluctant to mentor women for fear of inappropriate behavior accusations.

Additionally, the demanding nature of legal practice may also be a factor. Many women in the legal profession have cited work-life balance issues and family responsibilities as barriers to submitting articles for publication. Women also tend to take on more pro bono work and may not have the same time as their male counterparts to focus on academic writing.

Impact of the Decline

The decline in the percentage of women authors on law reviews is troubling for several reasons. First, it raises questions about the extent to which the legal profession has advanced in terms of gender equality. Second, law reviews serve as sources of legal knowledge and scholarship. The decline in women authorship may mean that the perspectives of female legal scholars are underrepresented in legal discourse.

Lastly, the decline could impact the career advancement opportunities of female law students and lawyers. Articles published in law reviews can be a critical factor in getting hired, obtaining clerkships, and receiving tenure. Thus, the decreasing percentage of women authors could hinder the career advancement opportunities of female law students and lawyers.

Conclusion

The declining percentage of women authors on law reviews is a concerning trend that requires attention and action. Solutions include raising awareness of unconscious biases in the selection process, providing mentorship opportunities for female law students, and encouraging law firms to promote work-life balance and flexibility in the workplace. By addressing these issues, law reviews can ensure that gender equality is reflected in legal scholarship and discourse, paving the way for a more equitable and inclusive future for the legal profession.

The glass ceiling can take many forms.  In some cases, it’s easy to see—when women aren’t allowed into educational institutions, for example, or aren’t given interviews for particular types of jobs.  Law schools no longer bar women from entering (in fact, many law schools today now admit a majority female class), but the law remains a profession that often significantly under represents women at its highest levels.

Law reviews are usually considered to be the most prestigious co-curricular activity in most accredited law schools.  Being on law review is significantly correlated with higher salaries, more job offers, and more prestigious career tracks after graduation.  Recently, Ms. JD, an organization dedicated to helping women enter the practice of law, conducted a survey about law review participation by gender.  Their results were surprising, and contained both good and bad news for women currently attending law school.

The study examined only the staff on law reviews for the top 50 law schools as ranked by U.S. News and World Report.  Women who are in or considering law school may be glad to know that getting on law review seems to be just about equally likely for men and women—women make up about 47 percent of total law school graduates and about 42 percent of law review staff members at schools in the top 50.

However, the coveted role of the editor in chief can open new career possibilities, and it’s here where women seem to be shut out according to survey results.  Just 28 percent of the editors in chief were women—a substantially lower percentage than would be expected from chance alone.  What makes this figure even worse news for women is that it represents a significant decrease from two years ago, the last time the survey was conducted.

This pattern of allowing women into the lower levels of legal power and authority, but not letting them become the boss, is surprisingly common across the board in the legal profession.  Less than 20 percent of partners at large law firms are women currently, even though women now make up nearly half of the total population of practicing attorneys.

Women have also had a difficult time breaking into the judiciary.  Just 27 percent of state and 23 percent of federal judges are women.  In academia, the situation is similar to that in the private sector.  While women make up a full half of new hires at the assistant professor level according to the AALS Statistical Report on Law Faculty, there are far fewer full professors.  Only 20 percent of law school deans today are women.

While the Ms. JD survey only examined law schools that were ranked in the Top 50, other surveys have looked at gender representation on law reviews from lower ranked accredited law schools.  These surveys showed greater gender parity in lower tier schools than in the top schools, suggesting that there is still some potential bias against women in the highest levels of legal scholarship and practice.

Source: www.nylslawreview.com, uscourts.gov, aals.org

Michigan Billionaire Sued for Sexual Harassment: Allegations against Alfred Taubman

Alfred Taubman is a billionaire and the former chairman of Taubman Centers, a real estate investment trust that operates a number of malls throughout Michigan and other parts of the United States. Taubman has recently been hit with a lawsuit alleging that he engaged in sexual harassment and created a hostile work environment for a former employee.

Allegations of Sexual Harassment

The lawsuit, filed by Jazmin Reese, alleges that Taubman repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances and comments toward her during her time working at Taubman Centers. Reese claims that Taubman would make lewd comments about her appearance, touch her inappropriately, and engage in other forms of sexual harassment.

Reese also alleges that she was retaliated against by Taubman Centers after she reported the harassment to her supervisors. She was allegedly given unfavorable assignments, denied opportunities to work on certain projects, and ultimately terminated from her position.

Response from Taubman Centers

Taubman Centers have denied the allegations made by Reese, and have pledged to vigorously defend themselves against the lawsuit. In a statement, the company stated that they have always taken allegations of sexual harassment seriously, and have a clear policy in place to address such claims. They assert that they investigated Reese’s claims and found them to be unfounded.

Reaction from the Community

The allegations against Taubman have sparked condemnation from many in the community, who are outraged that such behavior could be taking place in a company with such a high profile. Some have called for a boycott of Taubman Centers, while others have expressed support for Reese and other victims of sexual harassment.

The case is also being closely watched by advocates for women’s rights and those pushing for stronger laws against sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

Conclusion

The allegations against Alfred Taubman are a reminder that sexual harassment and discrimination are still pervasive problems in many workplaces. It is important that victims of such behavior are empowered to speak out and hold those responsible accountable for their actions. The outcome of this lawsuit will hopefully send a strong message that such behavior will not be tolerated, and that those who engage in it will face consequences for their actions.

A flight attendant has accused one of the richest men in Michigan of sexual harassment and has lawyers backing her up.  According to the flight attendant, the man, Alfred Taubman, harassed her repeatedly in both verbal and physical ways.  Taubman runs a large number of malls throughout Michigan and so far has denied the allegations of sexual harassment against him.

Plaintiff Nicole Rock sued in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan.  According to court documents, Taubman hired Rock to be a flight attendant on his personal jet.  The harassment began soon after she began working on the flights, including unwanted physical contact.  The suit alleges that Taubman forcibly kissed Rock using his tongue and that he also tore her blouse and pantyhose attempting to touch her breasts and crotch.

According to Rock, she was also subjected to repeated interrogations about her behavior outside of work or during layovers.  After one layover, her employer asked her if she had had sexual intercourse with anyone during the layover hours.

The harassment allegedly escalated even further when Rock became pregnant and announced her pregnancy to her employer.  Taubman allegedly was furious, asking increasingly inappropriate and belligerent questions about the pregnancy.  According to the lawsuit, Taubman mocked Rock about her weight and said that her pregnancy had “ruined her [expletive] life.”

Rock returned to work after her pregnancy, but after being met with additional harassment about her pregnancy and birth, went on disability leave and was subsequently fired.  She then sued in district court.

According to Rock, she complained multiple times about the harassment and inappropriate attention that was coming from Taubman.  However, none of her supervisors or superiors in the company took any action to stop the harassment from occurring.  Rock’s attorneys maintain that Taubman and his private airline have violated several statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Because Rock’s attorneys allege that the conduct from Taubman was malicious and willful, they are asking not only for compensatory damages but punitive damages as well.  Taubman’s private fortune is estimated to be nearly $3 billion dollars, and Rock’s suit requests damages totaling $29 million.

So far, Taubman and his attorneys have remained mute on the subject of a settlement, denying all allegations and claiming that the suit is simply the act of a disgruntled former employee.  It remains to be seen whether Rock will be able to collect damages from her sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit.

Sources: uscourts.gov, detroitnews.com

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