Women's Rights Employment Law Blog

For those who live in “post-race” America, its time to acknowledge the rose-colored spectacles. Racism must be well and alive in the country where even a mayor at his position of responsibility uses supremacist slurs while addressing racial minorities.
Coopertown in Tennessee has a mayor Danny Crosby who while swearing in a new police officer on Martin Luther King Day said, “Happy James Earl Ray Day” as a reference to King’s assassin. Crosby has displayed highest form of despicable behavior if the 17-page complaint against him filed by the attorney general of the district after one-sixth of the entire town brought a petition is to be believed. While making the town a “traffic trap” to earn ticket revenues, his targets are easily Hispanic drivers, who he thinks are “mostly illegal anyway”.
He has three weeks to respond to the charges.

A recent focus groups poll commissioned by National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) has found out where the public stands on the issue of trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws. A vast majority of those surveyed support trans-inclusive laws, despite being asked transphobic language in their questions by the pollsters.

“We used a trans-unfriendly language to describe what we were talking about, and we said a law that would protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity would specifically protect transgender people. Transgender people are men who identify or present themselves as women and women who identify or present themselves as men and includes transsexuals, cross dressers, and people who have had or are considering sex change operations… And now I’m going to ask you again, I’m not going to ask you about your values, I’m going to ask you do you favor a law that protects people on the basis of both sexual orientation, gender identity, one or the other or neither? And we got 59 percent said both, nine percent one or the other, 23 percent said nobody. It’s good news,” said Candy Cox, NGLTF’s communications senior strategist.

Amidst applauds during last September, the House of Representatives passed a hate crimes bill that provided protections for transgender individuals. The lead co-sponsors of the House version were Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is gay, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), who is a lesbian, and Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich), Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), and gay Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.).

However, the bill went through rough weather in the Senate. US senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) and Gorden Smith (R-Ore) refused to make the Senate version of the bill trans-inclusive. They apprehended the bill with a change of language could not have even seen light of the day. Their concerns were genuine, considering past overall hostilities towards similar gay civil rights bills.

In essence, both the House and Senate versions of the legislation had called for amending an existing federal anti-hate crimes statute that authorizes federal prosecution for hate crimes based on someone’s race, religion and ethnicity. The Kennedy-Smith bill in the Senate then went ahead and added sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the categories covered under the existing law. The House version also had added the categories of sexual orientation, gender, disability and gender identity.

Not all is well:
Although the House version had added gender identity, it pertains only to the hate crimes bill, not to the employment sector. The leading co-sponsor in the House Rep. Barney Frank opposes adding transgender language to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. ENDA calls for banning employment discrimination in the private sector based on sexual orientation. Relevant to note here is the fact that ENDA itself is lying dormant in Congress since the 1970s. This has lent more apprehensions for Frank who says adding a transgender clause to ENDA would result in fewer co-sponsors.

The mainstream applied logic is that transgender clause helps prevent physical attack, and hence it should be suited for hate crimes bill. And considering that ENDA’s destiny is doomed in the Republican-controlled Congress as such, even without a transgender clause, any further alteration would harm the prospects ever greater.

What’s the real issue?
Well, few things have emerged. First off, categorizing people as LGBT would help only when they are provided with equal in-group access. In other words, the LGB people and the transgender individuals do not share the same concern, much less do they enjoy similar privileges.

As is becoming of a system of governance which has historically oppressed few groups and privileged certain others (in some unsophisticated terms, Malcolm X had alluded to this as ‘divide and rule’ policy), the current administration more so has been actively vocal about creating the distinctions more apparent. That the LGBT people do not enjoy similar rights as heterosexual people is no new knowledge. But to mar the united opposition to this systematic discrimination, the LGBT peoples themselves have been divided since some time now, in terms of the degree of their access to resources and rights.

Latest in the lowest ladder of oppression are the transgendered people, who have found absolutely no support from either the House or the Senate. If the House supports their inclusion in Hate Crimes bill, it refuses them access to ENDA. As for Senate versions, not even the Hate Crimes bill has time for the transgender.

The layers of difficulties that have been systematically in place to seclude the transgender people from the minimum safety and comfort that most heterosexual people take simply for granted poses few serious questions.

The ones that currently surface, even as the recent poll shows solidarity to causes of the transgender individuals include but are not limited to, the awareness of transgender, the privilege of the heterosexuality, and the redundant administrative hurdles.

Awareness of the transgender: It’s not just a few history textbooks filled with systematic lies for consumption of school children, its also the composite lot of media, military and industrial nexus that have refused to deal with the whole truths. As a result, heterosexuality has been taken for granted to such an extent as a religiously accurate norm, that any alternative is considered to be one non-normal group called LGBT. At this point, the dismissal of the minorities are done at the alter of celebration of the norm. Therefore, most are kept oblivious of distinguishing the nuances of gender and sexuality.

Without education of an understanding of what constitutes “gender identity” or “gender identity and expression”, we are finding resistance to their inclusion as forming the explicit language that’s needed to be there in proposed legislations. The transgendered people are absolutely accurate in their fear that the proposed laws will continue to discriminate against them, since judges may interpret the victims from a lens that’s indifferent or silent about covering them.

In the process, the politicians are acting on priority to ensure passage of the bill, and looking at the technicalities that will facilitate the process. They are in no way interested to get educated on the crucial differences between the LGB and the T communities and how non-inclusion of some languages might actually work in detriment to the transgender peoples’ right in the civil society and employment sector.

Privilege of heterosexuality: The ruling elites have always advocated the inevitability of hierarchy of oppression. And so, it is considered that sustainable reforms, not radical changes need to take place while all along posing one oppressed group against another. So different systems of oppressions such as race, sex, gender, etc are poised in a prioritized hierarchy, and not as constituents of a multi-layered complex that is exploited all at once.

To quote Audre Lorde from a chapter in “Oppression and social justice: Critical frameworks.” (5th ed., p. 51, Edited by J Andrzejewski, 1996), “Within the lesbian community, I am Black, and within the Black community I am a lesbian. Any attack against Black people is a lesbian and gay issue, because I and thousands of other Black women are part of the lesbian community. Any attack against lesbians and gays is a Black issue, because thousands of lesbians and gay men are Black.” The privilege of heterosexuality ignores the fact that heterosexuality itself is not a privilege by default any longer once one considers the oppressions of other race, class and gender variants.

Administrative hurdles: Administration poses deliberate problems because it gains from the divisive tendencies. The monopolist politicians who have thus far believed in standardized notions of the male supremacy have not stopped either at ensuring draconic laws that recognize marriage only between a man and a woman and grant them the best of civil rights, they have also countless number of times prevented progressive proposals from becoming legislations.

I am tempted to quote Lorde again, “It is not accidental that the Family Protection Act, which is virtually anti-woman and anti-Black, is also anti-gay. As a Black person, I know who my enemies are, and when the Ku Klux Klan goes to court in Detroit to try and force the Board of Education to remove books that the Klan believes “hint at homosexuality”, then I know I cannot afford the luxury of fighting one form of oppression only. I cannot afford to believe that freedom from intolerance is the right of only one particular group. And I cannot afford to choose between the fronts upon which I must battle these forces of discrimination, wherever they appear to destroy me. And when they appear to destroy me, it will not be long before they appear to destroy you.”

That’s a serious lesson for our well-meaning politicians if they are genuinely contemplating to benefit the people thus far discriminated against. Not merely for the representatives to see their names hit the halls of fame, for passing of yet another ineffectual bill.

The city animal services department of Los Angeles had to wait till today when massive protests by activists over the last week finally changed its stance towards participating in a planned bikini contest called “Hooters for Neuters” for spaying pets.

It speaks volumes about the department’s reactionary compositions that have lent administrative helps to an organization systematically aimed at degrading women. Although, from one angle, it does appear to be natural to collaborate with the Hooters, since the department itself espouses spay and neuter as the methodical solution to welfare of animals!

However, the department has technically not backed out of the event. It has merely assured that it will not receive any money from the event. So the “Hooters for Neuters”, a conservative, anti-animal rights, sexist organization of disrepute will still continue to use the city department as its partner on all its publicity campaigns and gain legitimacy.

Under pressure, the Hooters website has undergone several changes since last week. In the beginning the official poster had a bikini clad woman supporting animal sterilization.

After severe protests from many feminist organizations, the city Controller Laura Chick responded in support of the activists. “Are we going backward here? We are a city with all kinds of progressive programs that empower women and end discrimination in the workplace, and now we're being connected with a Hooters bikini contest. It isn't right.”

Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks finally got convinced that the poster was at least degrading to women, and the poster accordingly changed on Hooters restaurant chain website, replacing the woman with a dog wearing a T-shirt that says “Hooters for Neuters”!

And now after more forced introspections, Boks has released a press note saying that the department will bow out of the July 13 fundraiser at the Hollywood nightclub hosted by the Hooters restaurant chain.

However, the Hooters on their part still mention the LA Animal Services department on their new amended poster.

In the meantime, according to reports, Councilwoman Jan Perry said the department's attempt to be creative in telling pet owners to sterilize their animals “crosses the line.” And animal activist Judy Cairns of San Pedro said she could live with the bikini contest on the condition that city officials — namely the men — also show some skin. “I want to see Mayor Villaraigosa's legs,” Cairns said.

In the classic American class society, the people down the hierarchy who physically serve the unwell are the ones least looked after. Nurses could be some of the biggest victims of this mentality, as their profession is mired with lack of respect, heavy workloads and low wages.

According to Institute for Women's Policy Research, wages for nurses stagnated in 2003 and then fell 6.4 percent in 2004, leading to a decline in nurses working at hospitals. Some of the key findings of this report include the following blatant indifference to workers’ deserved needs:

* Of 49 recent analyses of the nurse workforce, only 11 proposed increasing wages in order to attract more nurses.
*A report from the US Government Accountability Office cited "inadequate staffing, heavy workloads, the increased use of overtime, a lack of sufficient support staff, and the adequacy of wages" as key factors of nurse shortage.
*The link between wages and the number of workers seeking jobs--which most economists view as the key driver in labor markets--is too often overlooked when it comes to nurses.
*The quality of patient care suffers when cost-cutting staffing practices reduce nurse/patient ratios.
*Over the late 1990s and into 2000, nurses pay did not increase at all, although some hospitals had already begun worrying a nurse shortage in 1997.
*Instead of competing for nurses by increasing pay, hospitals often turn to a combination of overworking (through mandatory overtime), contingent workers, understaffing, and one time hiring bonuses to meet staffing needs.

Last week itself, four class action lawsuits have been filed against 20 of the biggest US hospitals, including no.1 HCA Inc and US Catholic Hospital System.

Nurses backed by Service Employees International Union, the country’s biggest health care union claimed that the hospitals had conspired to depress wages for nurses amid a national shortage. The claim says that hospitals discuss nurses’ wages over meetings via telephone and through written surveys, in order to coordinate and suppress pay.

The suits, filed in federal courts in Chicago; Memphis, Tennessee; Albany, New York; and San Antonio, Texas, seek back compensation and legal costs totaling "hundreds of millions of dollars" under federal antitrust laws.

As for the HCA, it has behaved predictably. Jeff Prescott, a spokesperson for HCA said, “This is one of four frivolous money-wasting lawsuits apparently generated by a union and a law firm designed to create publicity in markets where unions are trying to get membership,” said.

A Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene investigation has found the state public health officer for Washington County William Christoffel as a violator of the state sexual harassment policy.

The allegations first published by The (Hagerstown) Herald-Mail Sunday said that health officer Christoffel who has been on administrative leave since June 9, had made sexually explicit comments, played with condoms and hugged a worker.

Today the officer has denied that he made any offensive comments to his staff and said he would contest any action taken against him as a result of the findings.

According to a separate Associate Press report, the complaints of sexual harassment were originally made by Sandra C. Hoffman, assistant director of Johns Hopkins University's George W. Comstock Center for Public Health Research and Prevention in Hagerstown.

In the report prepared by investigator Hilda J. Davis based on interviewes of 13 witnesses from the Comstock Center and the health department, Christoffel had already admitted to seven offenses, including making sexually explicit statements, using condoms as a joke, hugging an employee publicly and referring to a school teacher who attended a school board meeting as "good eye candy."

Trade unions in the country during recent times have been operating on templates. At least half of all labor unions in New York city have decided to challenge this practice, where the city negotiates a deal with one union and then uses that contract as a sort of template for other negotiations.

Mayor Bloomberg thinks “one size fits all” will not fit any one since the coalition is formed by 20 labor unions that have different work rules and hence it might not be served by working together.

Refuting the Mayor’s apprehensions and calling the move a “milestone” for city municipal unions, in a statement, United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said, “With working people losing their pensions and health care, and the erosion of the middle class, many of us realize that the issues that bind us are far greater than the ones that divide us.”

Currently 20 labor unions coalition will bargain on behalf of about 175,000 city workers. The association, yet unnamed, includes civilian and uniformed unions and brings together members of both the AFL-CIO and the neophyte Change to Win coalition.

The ones who have not agreed to take part include the police, firefighters unions, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union District Council 37, the city’s largest public-employee union.

Let’s do a reality check. No woman has ever led the presidential ticket of a major political party in the United States. Only one—Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984—has been nominated for vice president by either the Republicans or the Democrats.

Earlier, Shirley Chisholm as the first black woman ever to run for President of the United States made an unsuccessful bid even for the 1972 Democratic nomination.

Today an AP report focuses on how US lags behind in female political representation. Yet, the report would not mention how the country could learn from others that have implemented radical quota systems to ensure women participation in the legislation. In fact the report attributes some unnamed experts as saying that factors helping female politicians outside the U.S. include financial support, women-focused reforms within individual political parties, and an organized effort by the media and the general public to champion political parity.

Whereas all these factors might be valid, the fact that countries like Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Chile, Liberia, apart from Israel and UK have had absolute success in electing women politicians to the highest office does not much support the thesis of financial support and media reforms. In addition, a concerted effort to prevent women from joining the highest political battlefield can only be overcome through an equally passionate effort at ensuring participation, not by merely opening the platform to unfair competition.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) is a misnomer. It is deliberately misleading so as to hijack the spirit of civil rights movement by naming itself similarly. At its best, it’s a right wing effort (funded by businessmen like Ward Connerly) to sabotage the ongoing demands to implement affirmative action more proactively. At its worst, it’s a highly reactionary movement aimed at systematically promote discrimination at workplaces.

This fall, Michigan voters are going to decide on the fate of use of affirmative action policies in the state. It’s especially alarming because the MCRI is proposing to outlaw race, gender and other personal demographic data as criteria for public institutions including Michigan's public universities to use in furtherance of civil rights initiative. Only in 1997, University of Michigan spearheaded the movement of affirmative action to be applicable in colleges, but over the last many years, continues to be the prime target.

The irony is that MCRI is not a new initiative by the right-wingers. Indeed, President Bush has echoed similar sentiments before. On January 15, 2003, the President said,

"..the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race. So, tomorrow my administration will file a brief with the court arguing that the University of Michigan's admissions policies, which award students a significant number of extra points based solely on their race, and establishes numerical targets for incoming minority students, are unconstitutional."

However, after a week, the President’s pleas also did not bear fruits for the reactionaries. In its first ruling on affirmative action in higher education admissions in 25 years, the Supreme Court justices voted 5-4 to uphold the University of Michigan's law school affirmative action policy by ruling that race can indeed be used in university admission decisions.

Detroit Free Press today runs two columns to provide voice to both schools of thoughts. Whereas Roger Clegg finds Affirmative Action an ambiguous term to deal with, Paul Hillegonds says we will roll back to the 60’s again if reactionaries had their way.

Black historian and author Lawrence Otis Graham says US Senate displays some of the same racist attitudes it displayed a century ago. His new book, “The Senator and The Socialite” (HarperCollins), surveys the internal racial hiring practices of the US Senate offices, which he thinks is pathetically below mark.

Graham says, “It is outrageous enough that this nation will only elect one black person to the U.S. Senate, but it is a true disgrace that the Senators, themselves, are unwilling to hire blacks and other minorities to run or assist in their offices.” He cites a study which shows that 94% of the Senate employees are white and not a single one of the 100 Senators has a black person in a chief of staff leadership post.

In a press release today, Graham says, “Nothing has changed on the Senate side of the Capitol building since 1874 when Senator Blanche Bruce became the first black elected to a full Senate term. There was 1 black in the Senate then, and there's still only 1 black there today. And none of the Senators seem to really care about that level of racial exclusion.”

Photograph taken in front of Pennsylvania Station, New York

The first female building inspector in Hayward City Hall Margaret Dufresne had to leave the job in 2001 because male inspectors discriminated against her, and her superiors, most of whom were female, retaliated against her for raising discrimination complaints.

The trial resumed last week after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that makes it easier for employees to lodge discrimination complaints against employers.

The irony is that even after five years, the woman employee who should have received justice by now is trying to still defend her case. This time, also against allegations that she was a “whiner” at workplace! The reality is that the city is much less diverse in its workforce, with overwhelming majority being white males. This could be the case due to the city choosing to drop diversity training workshops in the early 1990s. City Manager Jesus Armas said that this needed to be done keeping in mind the economic recession and budgetary consideration. And amidst chuckles from the courtroom, he could not answer to Dufresne’s lawyer’s question: “why city leaders built a costly new City Hall in the mid-1990s when they were abandoning diversity training?”

As the trial goes on, one thing is certain: it’s a hearty respite that workers can now get their cases moving against the former or present bosses without a fear of any retaliation.

One of New York State’s largest gay and lesbian advocacy groups, Empire State Pride Agenda, has endorsed Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in the race for governor. Spitzer has said he supports same-sex marriage and he would work to implement a bill legalizing such unions to the Legislature if he's elected governor.

Spitzer has won an early endorsement of the Working Families Party, community group ACORN and labor unions, including those that broke from the AFL-CIO to form the Change To Win Federation.

"Not all movements are progress"
Frederick Douglas

In an excellent overview on women CEOs in corporate America, Donecia Pea writes today that women represent less than 2% of the Fortune 1,000 CEOs and just 1.4% of the Fortune 500 CEOs!

According to a study, on the Fortune 500 corporate boards, in last decade, the average rate of increase in women’s representation was one half of one percentage point per year! And if women held only 14.7% of board seats, only 3.4% were women of color. At this rate, it would take another 70 years for women to hold approximately 50% of board seats (Catalyst. Right-click to save in PDF)!

The problem persists on the front of statistics, no doubt. But what’s also needed within discourse of the number studies is a critical emphasis on the genealogy of disparity and ways to work on it.

Such a trenchant corporate disparity can not be merely incidental. And the rate of increase in women's participation is not indicative of any progress. It’s perpetuation of a system of oppression in terms of both gender and race producing a class division. Current forms of implementations of civil rights laws are proving ineffectual to handle the inequity, and fresh radical steps need be taken to undo the centuries of exploitation. It’s not the ladder of fair competition that women are not stepping up on; it’s the unfair monopolists who are not ready to inch away from the seats of power that’s creating hostile prospects.

East Lansing teachers’ union President Edwina Marshall has raised objection to possible discriminatory stance by the school district in hiring of the principal of MacDonald Middle School. The finalist principal in question who was dropped was a black internal candidate.

In face of obvious defense from the district officials, what substantiates the claim by Marshall is the discrimination she was subjected to herself during the interview process. During the event, Marshall, who is black, was incidentally seated next to the only minority candidate, Andy Wells. At that point, the human resource director of the district passed a comment to her that she should move so as to “balance the color in the room”.

Although Wells has since accepted an offer of becoming principal in another high school, Marshall has rightly brought this matter to light. Firstly, out of a total of 240 teacher body, the school has only 14 who are black (6%), whereas 17% of the student body is black. In other words, proportionately speaking, minority teachers are three times less than the minority students. Secondly, in an effort to “work together”, the school might end up overlooking the serious nature of allegation.

In defense of the human resource director, an attorney has said, “It has been Ms. Peatross' practice to strategically place members of an interview team throughout the interview room to 'balance' the room by position, gender and race, thus creating a welcoming environment for interviewees.”

But the reality is maintaining ‘balance’ often times germinates from deliberate assumptions too. Considering that Wells was the only minority candidate, there was no way a balance could have been anyway established. But what was established in the process was a suspicion that two people of color sitting by each other can influence fairness. Now that is ridiculous.

Technorati Profile
A forthcoming California Special Education Alert (July 1, 2006) says that a grandparent of an 11-year-old student with an articulation disorder who was allegedly repeatedly harassed and assaulted by other students, has got another chance to amend discrimination complaint. The complaints in this case (Walden v. Moffett, 45 IDELR 219) are of the nature of race and disability discrimination

The student’s grandparent has claimed the district's failure to protect him constituted a violation of his rights under the IDEA and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. Apparently, the court has found very ambiguous the action or inaction on part of the district that’s being alleged. Hence the grandparent has been asked to first, a) exhaust IDEA’s administrative remedies, and to b) specify what precise roles of the district were being questioned.

So what happens if someone takes part in a non-political march/rally? One would say, she/he gets to sport a new t-shirt and have a scoop of vanilla. After all, people take part in public spheres at all sorts of marches, including for breast cancer, and AIDS awareness, pro-choice, or even pro-life rallies.

Think again. Yesterday, a longtime columnist and features writer for Allentown-based Morning Call Frank Whelan was suspended from work without pay for having walked on a gay-pride parade.

Whelan, obviously disturbed and enraged, said, “I would be emotionally ill; I would be wretching; I would be incapable of working with these people. I cannot go back into that building. I was naive enough to believe the Morning Call would be happy [for me] because they are always talking about how they believe in diversity.”

And he is considering filing a lawsuit. Now that’s what you should do too, if you take part in a rally and you are suspended, because the rally you took part in does not suit the whims and fancies (or deep-seated prejudices) of the company bosses.

Today three women workers are facing hostile consequences for a brave front they adopted more than six months back.

Last November three women firefighters had sued Toledo city, Ohio over gender discrimination. They had filed cases against the Chief of the Toledo Fire Department as well as two Deputy Chiefs, accusing them of gender discrimination, retaliation, and creating a hostile work environment for women. Each plaintiff had asked for damages and compensation in excess of $250,000.

Not to be outsmarted, they had also taped various conversations at the workplace that supported their claims.

Instead of truly introspecting over the possibly genuine claims and basing on the evidences, work towards sensitively diversifying the work environment, the department is showing fire of rage. It has gone ahead suspending these women workers and filing administrative charges for taping evidence!

Despite recent Supreme Court ruling this Thursday strictly condemning retaliating employers, the Toledo Fire Department is obviously not unnerved. Now this also shows why the women must have been absolutely right in their decision to have sued the City at the first place. The Fire Department clearly has agendas: Discrimination, arrogance, and now retaliation. Someone ought to tell them, its illegal!

Imagine an executive at the position of director, earning $92K-a-year, being asked to keep a “low profile”. Then the board of directors discuss that he is not “the image they wished to project” for the hospital he raised funds for. After some time, a “reorganization” is conducted where this person is demoted to work under a fellow director. Upon complaining he is warned of being insubordinate and during the 90-day probation period, he is finally fired.

And now imagine, all these changes in this person’s life starts, just after he brings in his partner to an annual event.

The plaintiff, in this case Kenneth Weimer, says he was fired after the board of directors learned he was gay. The CEO who hired and fired Weimer within 2 months of his job says, that was not the case. In what could turn out to be an important case to keep a watch, St Rose Hospital Foundation in the Bay Area is being sued. Also incidentally, the facility since 1960’s was founded by Catholic nuns and was a Catholic institution when Weimer was “discovered” to be gay!

After working for 11 years at Girl Scout of Maumee Valley Council, Ohio, employment of Jill Marie Gerding, 50, was unceremoniously terminated. She has been replaced by a 24-year-old man. Gerding has filed lawsuit against her former employer alleging discrimination based on disability and age.

The worse aspect is, she was relieved of her work after she filed a state Bureau of Workers' Compensation claim for a neck injury she suffered while working at the camp in 2000.

The sensations attributed to cases of sexual harassment often foster media to judge the women. However it leaves out the issues of intersections of different social locations. Women facing discrimination are more often than not victims because of their subordinate economic status in the hierarchy as well.

One glaring case which has come to light today pertains to 10 women of Davenport. These women belonged to lower economic class, and did not have much housing options. The landlord John Burche coerced sexual favors from them in exchange of reduced rent. A federal district court judge has decided $327,000 in favor of the women. That’s the heartening news.

But that’s still like dealing with the event. The system that perpetuates plights of lower economic class women is not being addressed. This is not incidental that the women happened to be at a juncture where they could be thus exploited. The court has correctly diagnosed that reduced rent is not a quids pro quo for sexual favor for landlord.

An USPS employee in Indiana state was constantly harassed at workplace, leading him to see a psychiatrist for anxiety and depression. His plight did not end there. Upon rejoining work, he was called “crazy” and because of the psychological care and medication owing to his “condition”, he was allegedly considered to be a danger to other employees.

At this point, what did the affected employee do? He took to protection under Americans with Disability Act (ADA). And since there was no clear evidence that the employee was neglecting his work or posing a risk to anyone, whereas it was true that the supervisor was already perceiving him as having mental disability leading to affect his work, ADA claim prevailed. Details in North West Indiana Times.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had made it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who complain of discrimination. But until yesterday, the Supreme Court had never specifically defined ‘retaliation’.

In a landmark unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court has now described scope for retaliation, and made all but trivial actions taken against a worker filing a discrimination claim illegal. What this implies is that the workers who have filed complaints of discrimination against employers will have much better scope now to file for separate discrimination cases against their bosses who retaliate. The ruling Thursday focused on the meaning of language in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Such a major victory for the workers has come about following the recent ruling in the case of Sheila White, who had filed a sexual harassment case against her supervisor at Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. in Memphis, Tennessee during 1997.
Full coverage here.
After all these years of struggles, it was this female worker's persistent stand against discrimination at her workplace that has finally helped define the scope of workers’ rights everywhere in the country. Read the ruling here.

This is a clear case of disability discrimination, although such workers, already afflicted by major medical issues do not perceive it this way. Job insecurity in the workplace becomes so paramount that the employees are compelled to feel more obligated to the company than the company feels responsible for them.

No wonder then, an estimated 77 million Americans age 19 and older - nearly 37 percent of adults - have a hard time paying medical bills, have had medical bills pile up, or both, according to the 2003 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey.

Tabitha Davies, a full time receptionist/cashier at Toyota of Nashua making $9.50 an hour, joined the pool recently. Her brain surgery will take place on June 27, and yet she does not know how to arrange funds (at least $1,000).

Why? Well, because she was fired by Toyota after she was diagnosed with brain tumor last month. She is rather sad that her employer could not hold her job until she could come back to work. But what is even more damaging is the manner she was treated at her workplace—the first place she went to in hope. She requested her boss to grant her a 3-months leave, and in return what she got was a notice of employment termination.

Its Gay Pride Season!
The March of Heritage may go smooth this Sunday in New York City, but the Journey Thus Far has not been. Is it time then that we posed similar assumption-based questions to the mainstream population, those that have been used to discriminate the people of alternative sexual orientations? Let's try putting it up at workplaces....

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and how did you first decide you were heterosexual?

3. Is it possible heterosexuality is a phase you will grow out of?

4. Is it possible you are heterosexual because you fear the same sex?

5. If you have never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn’t prefer that? Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?

6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexuality? How did they react?

7. Why are heterosexuals so blatant; always making a spectacle of their heterosexuality? Why can’t they just be who they are and not flaunt their sexuality by kissing in public, wearing rings, etc?

Continue reading "Is Heterosexuality Normal?" »

Stephanie Tavares writes for a business weekly in Las Vegas about how workplace romance can cause tricky legal problems. She takes a couple of rather mainstream arguments often proposed by the corporate sector about workplace harassments:

a) That, the sexual harassment could actually be grounded in a ‘workplace romance’.
b) Due to discrimination complaints lodged by one woman worker, workers’ relations get affected.

These two main arguments are actually incredible workplace myths that companies propagate, to help them function without facing any resistance against hostile work environments.

First off, sexual harassment is not related to ‘workplace romance’. Hypothetically speaking, even if one knows that a certain supervisor and a female worker had a romantic relationship at workplace, that is no ground for justification of any subsequent sexual harassment.

It should be clear that the validity of sexual harassment starts only after an employee complains of harassment or discrimination. It has nothing to do with the prior nature of relationship that the employee had with a supervisor. There is a fine line of distinction that the lawmakers are usually aware of, and the media should be sensible towards: sexual harassment invariably involves some sort of undue favors, a coercion and/or hostile work environment. It must not be allowed to be confused with terms such as ‘workplace romance’.

Secondly, filing of discrimination complaints could lead to non-cooperation from fellow employees afterwards. But it’s still an ‘employer argument’ that is allowed more privilege. Instead of resisting complaints lest it makes the environment hostile later on (and because the workers will miss their boss!), the affected employees need to be reassured that a legal judgment invariably states the undue practices of employers clearly enough for the entire country to know that the boss was wrong anyway. Hence, to refrain from complaining against acts of harassment in fear of future boycotting from fellow workers is too speculative a stance, and often a miscalculated one. Employees should not fall prey to such simplistic argument of possible apprehensions played up by the corporate houses to guard their own class interests.

For the content corporate houses, it’s often easy to have a sexual harassment policy drafted: must be taking a few committee members. Easier to let it be taken for granted: with the workplace inequity in gender representation, or at most times, with professed hostile environment for women workers. And easiest to “escape” the charges of violations: because one, the onus of proving charges usually takes long enough, during which the company regains its public sympathies; and two, resolutions are usually “settlements”, a matter of parting with some redundant profits.

In either case, kudos to a young woman who as a teenager was harassed by her restaurant manager and others. As a former server at a Steak n Shake restaurant in St. Louis, Amanda Nichols, 17, was subjected to come-ons from an older male cook, who pulled on her apron, touched her and made sexually explicit remarks. Nichols also claimed the man followed her to the parking lot one night after work, threatened her and exposed himself. The manager did not heed to her complaints, and consequentially she was asked to leave her job.

But she went on to file a lawsuit against a company that has been running its business since more than 70 years now and operates 430 restaurants in 20 states of the country. Promptly, Steak n Shake then denied the allegations.

Continue reading "Teenage sexual harassments: Implementations after Settlements?" »

Absolutely not. Well, almost.

The fine line is treaded by more than 70 million U.S. women who work, and almost three-quarters of them who have children.

Resultantly, according to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the claims of pregnancy discrimination are increasing, up 31 percent from 1992 to 2005. In Fiscal Year 2005 itself, EEOC received 4,449 charges of pregnancy-based discrimination, resolving 4,321 pregnancy discrimination charges and recovering $11.6 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).

Few relevant issues that surface in matters of pregnancy discrimination includes the fact that federal law does not require even minimal accommodation for pregnancy-related disability, as long as the employer treats pregnant employees at least as well as other temporarily disabled employees. But pregnancy not being inherently disabling, many women can work just fine (in comfortable settings such as being an academician), and at the same time, for those women who are in specific jobs requiring physical movements, even normal pregnancy poses limitations.

The pressing needs of the hour then demand that a stable, uniform legislation be in place that makes it a point for the employers to provide accommodation irrespective of the nature of work. A social adaptation to understanding the needs of pregnant women workers, their indispensability, an enforced rule to require employers to keep them in job despite pregnancy, and welcome them back to the job soon after they rejoin after the duly paid leave, is the starting point.

In Pleasant Grove, Utah, a police officer Ernesto Ferron feels he has been wronged by being treated with contempt at work. In what constitutes a classic case of race discrimination at workplace Ferron says his Mexican-American heritage was never welcomed by his former supervisor.

In a lawsuit filed recently, he cited his supervisor saying him, “Mexicans are merely here to serve others,” and “Mexicans are better with weedeaters in their hands.”

The lawsuit names as defendants Ferron’s former supervisors Kelly Liddiard and Jim Taufer, former Mayor James Dankleff and City Attorney Christine Petersen.

The suit asks $900,000 in damages, removal of Peterson as city attorney and establishment of an effective harassment reporting mechanism for all employees. In addition to verbal insults, Ferron said he was also subjected to undesirable shifts and denied advancement opportunity because of his ethnicity.

Suffolk County, New York Police Department has been recently found guilty of discriminating against pregnant women on the force. This is a resounding victory for the potential victims of pregnancy discrimination in male-dominated sectors.

The pregnant officers were denied desk duty positions just because they were pregnant and all of six plaintiffs were forcibly absent from work for at least two months before giving birth. They were also forced to go on unpaid leaves after their allowance of sick days were exhausted.

The insensitivity of NYPD comes to light in a case where it involves even its own staff members. The most common sense understanding of causes and nature of pregnancy has been lost on the department, notwithstanding the legal factors. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, passed by Congress in 1978, an employer violates the law if it intentionally discriminates against pregnant employees or maintains a policy that adversely affects pregnant employees. The PDA covers pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, including abortion.

Will Daisy Jaffe prevail over Morgan Stanley?

Jaffe, a female Financial Advisor at Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. filed a national class action lawsuit today in federal court in San Francisco, charging the company with gender discrimination. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. is the retail brokerage arm of Morgan Stanley.

She said, “Although I was an excellent, hardworking Financial Advisor, Morgan Stanley favored my male colleagues, who were frequently less qualified than I was. Because of Morgan Stanley's favoritism, my compensation was lower than less-qualified male brokers in my office.”

Jaffe alleged violations of federal and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act on behalf of herself and the class. She also claimed that Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. discriminated against her individually based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Cleo Kirk, a sitting Shelby County Commissioner of District 3 in Tennessee is in the spotlight. A former administrator Calvin Williams named him as the person who is going to face a federal sexual harassment complaint. This one is going to be an interesting political battle actually, since Williams himself is going to face trial for having been charged with bribing in order to influence “business transactions” of the County.
Williams disclosing Kirk’s name to the media may seem little odd. In fact, he says, “I'm going to say it, because that is the truth, and he'll have to answer the best way he (Kirk) can”.

Continue reading "Political motivation, the usual excuse" »

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) has documented widespread and costly unequal treatment of minority loan applicants compared with whites. After a 28-month investigation in six metropolitan areas using “paired testers,” or mystery shoppers, NCRC has filed its first complaint against the largest brokerage network in the country -- Houston-based Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corp.

Columnist Kenneth Harney says, “despite higher credit scores and incomes, minority shoppers often were quoted higher rates and presented fewer loan options than whites.” The investigation among other things, found that:

a) Brokers didn’t discuss their fees -- a key expense in any mortgage transaction -- as often with minority shoppers as they did with white shoppers. Nearly 74 percent of white shoppers received information about fees, but only 31 percent of minority shoppers received disclosures.

b) Brokers offered twice as many loan alternatives to whites than to minorities. Ninety percent of whites were offered a fixed-rate first mortgage, compared with 56 percent of minorities.

c) Twice as many white shoppers were offered lower-cost conventional mortgages, while minorities more often were steered to subprime loan deals.

d) Brokers spent more time discussing loan options and terms with whites -- 39 minutes on average -- compared with 27 minutes with minorities.

New rule for investigating systemic discrimination compensation has come to fore with the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)’s publication to that effect.

A final rule for evaluating compensation practices for systemic discrimination will be done adopting multiple regression analysis to compare the compensation of "similarly situated" employees. The agency says the tool will allow it to compare the compensation of similarly situated employees while taking into account legitimate factors--such as education, experience, and performance--that influenced the employers' pay decisions. Of course the agency will obtain anecdotal evidence to support the statistical evidence.

The pregnant pauses by women professionals operate on entirely different dynamics. The women say, these are pauses entirely decided upon by them. Not with any work pressure, and certainly not because of any management misconduct.

This is where the non-essentialist nature of women resurfaces for careful perusal. In the lower economic class bracket, women struggle hard to keep their current jobs, owing to the fact that the manual jobs are the only source of economic sustenance. These are the jobs they rely on to pay the bills, and take care of children. This also leads them to feel the need of confronting the management in case of unjust treatment during pregnancy. The financial factor apart, the women from lower economic strata also do not feel inhibited in claiming discrimination, because often times that’s the last logical resort to attain justice.

In contrast, career professional women in high-profile jobs (television anchors) often tend to underestimate the possible consequences of job loss, one, because they are more certain to get a job back after the ‘phase’ is over, and two, their own reputation is publicly connected with that of their organization (like the masthead rules supreme).

Hence one should not be surprised at statements coming from high profile women professionals today, who even while stepping down from their positions do not ascribe the causes to any sexist organizational structure. They rather prefer to take the onus of decision entirely upon themselves. At times to the extent that they even become defensive.

Just look at ABC “World News Tonight” anchor Elizabeth Vargas’ statement to Philadelphia Inquirer last week, “I'm not a pregnant working mother wronged. I played a crucial and active role in this decision.”

Her need to assert that she had played an active role in this decision is part of a dynamic that has layers within. Before being replaced by 63-year-old Charles Gibson, from a coveted anchor chair position Vargas announced on the television “For now … I need to be a good mother.”

Vargas is forced to play into the stereotypes that foster male domination in an almost invisible manner. By refusing to identify with “wronged” working mother, she affirms the male perspective, that not all pregnant working mothers are wronged if they relinquish the jobs. Or the statement that to be a “good mother” she needed to leave the job, is another vindication of male norms.

In the entire process of assertive positions of privilege, fundamental system of gender oppression remains entirely unquestioned. Why does a woman have to make a decision that will tantamount to her “leaving” the job? Even if the decision is made “actively”, how informed is the decision? Why would not the organization insist that she does not leave the job especially considering that the audience was looking forward to receiving Vargas, a pregnant Vargas with all the warmth? Finally, why would the onus of proving a good parent necessarily lie on a woman? And why becoming a good mother should entail closed door disconnect from one’s profession one so carefully shapes up throughout?

Unlike railroad miners or fast food counter cashier women, high-profile women may not be in desperation of a source of financial sustenance. But exactly like them, they are exploited systematically in the male myth world of a value system of adjudging a pregnant woman as weak, a working woman as bad mother and an assertive working woman as limited conditional resource.

A jury did not view an age discrimination lawsuit as thus, after it sided with a county in California. A former top manager in the Department of Social Service had claimed he lost his job for age discrimination — he turned 50 in 2004 — and said the county was retaliating because he had complained about alleged fiscal mismanagement.

Despite the fact that Daniel Gardner, the manager had in his six years tenure received “positive reviews, accolades and merit incentives.”, the jury found more credibility in the county’s argument that the layoff was primarily economic and policy-based, since the department had faced a $3 million shortfall.

Media create, sustain and foster images, not just by lending voices to some (like celebrities), but also by withholding voices from some (like the transgender). In a sensation-hungry, sadistically competitive society that we live in, media exist to quench the instant thirsts for blood (hot news). And in the entire process, intercontextualities and complexities of social locations are often sacrificed.

Hence one finds the mainstream news choosing sides of the “authorities” or the “victors”. The sources of news in order to be credible, then emanate from the powerful quarters. And balance of news coverage becomes an incidental casualty.

In the recent review of a case involving a transgender person who was interrogated by the police over possession of a stolen purse, we can see the insensitivity of media as a public sphere.

Continue reading "Court unconvinced with apparent femininity" »

Editor of National Review Online, Kathryn Jean Lopez writes today about a Wisconsin-based Catholic school where a teacher was fired for artificially conceiving her twins. Furthering the curiosity on how a pro-life institute might have issues with pregnancy, she explains it was because the teacher had used in vitro fertilization to conceive. IVF usually unintentionally involves the destruction of embryos, and hence drawing ire from Catholic Church.

In a fervently religious environment that the country is under siege during present administration, the role of teachers to question assumptions have become secondary to their roles as upholder of Church traditions, however irrational they may be.

Continue reading "Its official! Discrimination in Catholic Schools" »

A restaurant employee gets a phone call from someone asking him to place money in a trash bag and place it outside. The person on the phone warns that he has four armed accomplices inside the restaurant.

One employee alerts the police. The police officers arrive, notice seven black men on a table, make super assumptions regarding them, and on gun point make them kneel down outside, then go ahead to check their recent phone call records, only to find out that these men had no business with the threats.

That the police officers assumed being black meant being potentially criminal is clearly indicative of highly insensitive attitude and complete lack of minimum diversity training. Of course the court dismissed the race discrimination lawsuit with a $100,000 settlement, an apology and a pledge from the city to improve officer training.

Last week, federal judge John Gleeson of US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn, handed down a 99-page ruling in Turkmen v. Ashcroft, a class-action lawsuit against US government officials, brought by Muslim immigrants detained after Sept. 11, 2001. This was the first time that the issue of Muslim detention and discrimination was addressed by a federal judge.

And considering the systematic infringement of detainees’ human rights following 9/11, one would have expected a sympathetic and humane understanding on part of the judiciary.

However, perfectly in tandem with the administration’s whims, the federal judge expanded the scope for the government to further abuse power. Now, what was possible in the Cuban territory under international watch now, is going to take place right here inside the free land: Government now has wider latitude under immigration law to detain non-citizens on basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation!

Without explanation? Indefinite imprisonment? On the basis of religious, race or national origin? At times, we need to read the rulings time and again to get sense of the most devious reactionary designs that the administrations can have access of implementation in the name of patriotism or by any other term.

“The executive is free to single out 'nationals of a particular country' and focus enforcement efforts on them,” the judge wrote. Judge Gleeson also admitted that if such profiling were "applied to citizens, our courts would be highly suspicious." In a New York Times report, David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University and a co-counsel in the lawsuit, said the ruling was the only one of its kind and made New York “an equal protection-free zone” because the government can detain immigrants wherever it chooses. “What this decision says is the next time there is a terror attack, the government is free to round up every Muslim immigrant in the U.S., based solely on their ethnic and religious identity, and hold them on immigration pretexts for as long as it desires,” he said. “We saw after 9/11 what the government did in an era of uncertainty about how far it can go. Judge Gleeson has essentially given them a green light to go much further.”

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had sued the Delano based Kovacevich 5 Farms on grounds of its rejecting women for seasonal jobs in its vineyards. Today, six farmworkers have filed a motion to join the EEOC.

The lawsuit claims that the company hired only men for about 300 jobs in harvesting and driving tractors each year between 1998 and 2002.

In a separate class action lawsuit last year, Kovacevich 5 Farms has already been sued in the past by workers who were forced to work unpaid hours doing preparatory work in the fields. A Fresno federal judge had awarded 500 farmworkers $1.7 million in that class action lawsuit last year.

With all the pro-family, pro-life, and pro-ethics faith systems in place, one wonders why discriminations keep recurring for employees who take leave for family needs, or become pregnant or join rallies to oppose war.
This is the internal contradiction of a country governed by corporates. On one hand the empty rhetoric of “freedom” and on the other, the actual limitations brought on through (im)moral arguments.

In a Newsday editorial today, Denise Hughes and Carolyn Sevos make a case for the rights of workers to take care of their kin. Although it sounds pretty elementary advocacy, the reality is that none of those that take advantage of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, actually get paid for the duration. It means more than 35 million Americans who take leaves to attend to sick family members remain unpaid throughout those periods. An Act is there to facilitate some good, but its spirit of implementation is yet to be broadened to be inclusive enough. Or considerate enough.

Hopefully, the Families in the Workplace Act pending before the legislature expanding New York State's Temporary Disability Insurance program will be brought to force. This provides a modest wage replacement for employees who need time to care for family or household members with chronic medical problems, medical emergencies or when they give birth to or adopt a child. Although the flip side still exists: it’s limited to just 12 weeks. And the workers need to justify the leave as adhering to similar clauses that allow for temporary disabilities leaves.

Around 300 discrimination complaints have been filed by The Programmers Guild so far this year against companies that have posted “H-1 B Visa holders only” ads on job boards. The actions have been filed with the US Department of Justice, Office of Special Council for Immigration-Related discrimination.

The interesting twist though is this. The companies have been charged with creating an atmosphere of “Americans need not apply” scenario on both Monster.com and Dice.com. Whereas this is a valid claim, the counter claim from the recruiting agencies say its perfectly legal to seek for H-1B visas after search for required workers who are citizens and permanent residents has run out.

But this case opens up a Pandora’s Box into the functioning of IT industry. John Miano, founder of the Summit, N.J.-based Programmers Guild who filed the action, said, “H-1B workers are in demand because they are cheap and they make good slave labor.”

Mark the phrases. “Cheap” and “good slave labor”. At least the silver lining in the entire argument is an admission of the exploitative legacy of the IT industry. Whether the companies can defend their advertisement to cater to American clients’ needs or not is a matter which will take quite a while to be resolved. In the meantime, welcome to the good slave labor market!

A pamphlet prepared by members of the Carnegie Mellon University Women's Center has extremely valuable explanations of terms that will be useful to heterosexual people and those who are planning to come out. The work says it will help the heterosexuals to learn basic common terms related to the gender and sexual identity communities, so that they can speak somewhat intelligently with members of these communities without seriously offending people or appearing totally clueless. Here is the entire list:

Continue reading "LGBT terms explained" »

Sexual harassment at workplace turns out to be a nightmare not just on ground of the harassment itself. The double jeopardy involves the manner in which punishments are awarded. The first to be penalized is usually always the employee herself. And this continues to happen partly because there are no sensitization trainings given to the corporate bosses and no assertion training for the female workers, in specific to sexual harassment.

In its pristinely developed capitalistic society today, possibly the ‘customer is king’ (a very dubious adage indeed), but what’s more true is that the ‘Boss is Always Right’.
This is a constant fear that governs the ways of marginalized employees: to keep quite or leave job or do both. The golden rule of course is NOT to quit.

Quite often, retaliation complaints are far stronger than the original, underlying complaint for discrimination.

Continue reading "NY City Council toughens discrimination policies" »

In an attempt to discredit Sub-comandante Marcos, one of the Zapatista leaders in southern Mexico, government officials there tried to spread the idea that Marcos was gay. Considering how machismo runs strong in Mexico, the administration thought that this image would tarnish the leader’s credibility.

In our world of capitalistic standards (or one may say, Fascist standards), societal normatives are imposed in various disguises. At some level, they are called laws, at another moral principles. Some walls read out the Commandments, and some schools teach Supreme Intelligent Design. Media represent the standards of beauty that the elite men desire. Women are granted freedom in phases, and are expected to be grateful in return. Historical discriminations are natural corollaries of capitalistic settings of production. With a manufactured consent around what must prevail in order to suit the class interests of the elite corporate domains, the minorities are divided, and then ruled over.

So, did Marcos think he was part of the minority? Yes.
Hence, hopelessly defeatist? Hell, no!

Marcos responded to the “charges” by writing a poem. He owned up the charge, embraced it and displayed how the weak are in reality the strong, the minorities are actually the majority:

“Yes, Marcos is gay
Marcos is gay in San Francisco
Black in South Africa
An Asian in Europe
A Chicano in San Ysidro
An anarchist in Spain
A Palestinian in Israel
A Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal
A Jew in Germany
A Gypsy in Poland
A Mohawk in Quebec
A pacifist in Bosnia
A single woman on the Metro at 10pm
A peasant without land
A gang member in the slums
An unemployed worker
An unhappy student and, of course,
A Zapatista in the mountains.
Marcos is all the exploited, marginalized, oppressed minorities resisting and saying ‘Enough’.
He is every minority who is now beginning to speak to every majority that must shut up and listen.
He is every untolerated group searching for a way to speak.
Everything that makes power and the good consciences of those in power uncomfortable – this is Marcos.”
[From Social Justice E-Zine #27.]

Blog is one such platform, where every minority speaks to every majority. Intrinsically a communication that is not top-down, but bottom-up. Blogosphere today consists of noise, albeit undistinguishable noise that represent a spiral of silence; where the medium works as a great educator, a fine agitator and a solid organizer.

But what’s a fine law firm like ours doing with a blog? Considering that Law is highly professional because it’s articulate, while Blog is generalist effort because its so random?

Well, the answer is inherent. Law is as specific as pertaining to the case. Blog is as random as it is allowed to be. This is a Blawg, a legal blog. One which will highlight, showcase, fervently advocate for, and unabashedly champion the cause of the underprivileged, historically dispossessed and professionally harassed. This will be an honest attempt at offering multiple perspectives within the struggle for social justice. And you, the reader, are most welcome to visit us anytime, everyday. We value your feedback and unwavering support!