Oregon Sued After Setting Aside $62M of COVID Relief Funds for Black Business Owners

/

The Oregon legislature set aside millions of dollars of federal COVID-19 relief funding specifically for Black-owned businesses. For Black business owners, this was an acknowledgment of both a history of racial discrimination and the fact that the coronavirus disproportionately affected that community. But others are questioning whether the earmarked funds were themselves a form of discrimination. The resulting lawsuits have tied up $8.8 million that would otherwise be keeping small businesses open and their employees paid.

The Oregon Cares Act Earmarks Funds for Black Businesses

Business owners across the country know how much of a scramble it has been to claim their share of the federal government’s COVID relief funds. That money passed through the state governments and each state’s legislature had a chance to determine how that money would be distributed.

In the Northwest, that took the form of the Oregon Cares Act. The legislation earmarked $62 million of the $1.4 billion the state received in Coronavirus relief funds specifically for grants to Black residents, business owners, and community organizations.

The step came in the wake of data showing that the coronavirus was disproportionately affecting and killing people of color. An open letter to the state legislature, signed by several advocacy groups and legislators, said:

“Black, brown, and Indigenous communities have always been denied the resources we need to be healthy. So, it is absolutely predictable that we are the communities hit hardest by COVID-19—and not just by the virus itself. Nationally, we also know that the CARES Act has already left Black communities behind.”

The letter advocated for targeted investment in the Black community that would recognize and respond to those disproportionate impacts. The Oregon Cares Act did just that.

White and Mexican Business Owners Claim Racial Discrimination

While those who signed the letter found this earmarking necessary, others said it was just another type of racial discrimination. Two lawsuits have been filed claiming that the Oregon Cares Fund was illegal discrimination — treating Black business owners differently because of their race.

The first lawsuit was brought by a white owner of a logging company in John Day called Great Northern Resources. He was later joined by another white business owner of Dynamic Service Fire and Security, an electrical company in Salem. One plaintiff says that even after borrowing $20,000 from the Paycheck Protection Program, he was on the verge of laying off employees unless he got access to the Cares Act funds. The arguments in that lawsuit fall into what is commonly called “reverse discrimination” when a program puts white people at a disadvantage.

The second lawsuit was brought by a Mexican-American woman who owns Revolucion Coffee House in Portland. She posted on social media:

“This lawsuit is not anti-black or anti-Latino. . . . This is not a fight about who is more or less qualified, but a kitchen for our elected officials that the state has to be involved in all its decisions and provide equal opportunities to use the money.”

COVID Relief Becomes the Next Battleground for Affirmative Action Cases

Both lawsuits have found backing from conservative legal advocacy groups. The Great Northern Resources lawsuit is backed by Project on Fair Representation, which has also challenged race-based admissions policies at universities like Harvard. These COVID relief lawsuits provide a new outlet for those who would argue that any decision based on race should be illegal.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that it isn’t quite that absolute. The government, including a state legislature or school board, is allowed to make race-based distinctions, but only when they are based on a “compelling government interest” and “narrowly tailored” to meet that need. Historically, this has included making up for past racial discrimination. However, more recent court opinions have put less emphasis on this and more attention on other compelling interests including diversity and inclusion.

Lawsuits Tie Up Millions in COVID-19 Relief Funds

The one thing that everyone on both sides of this argument agrees on is that this money needs to go to the businesses struggling to stay open throughout the pandemic. But the nature of prolonged litigation could mean the lawsuits do just the opposite. Rather than giving access to more money, the lawsuits are, at least temporarily, reducing the amount of money in the pot. In response to the lawsuits, the backers of the Oregon Cares Fund said in a statement:

“Pending clarity from the court on the matter of the class, we have decided to temporarily move the remaining $8.8 million in the Fund to the court. . . . We will make the case that supporting Black Oregonians does not automatically mean that everyone else is harmed. That idea is only perpetuating the problem of race in America today.”

No matter how these lawsuits resolve, they will necessarily delay putting money in the hands of business owners, Black or otherwise, who need it most.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our discrimination attorneys understand the complicated issues behind racial discrimination, for and against Black business owners. If you believe Affirmative Action has improperly worked against you, racial discrimination is making growing your business more difficult, we can help you review your options and protect your rights. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to a discrimination attorney.

Cyberbullying: Technology, Responsibility, and Community Safeguards

/

REGISTER HERE

“Cyberbullying: Technology, Responsibility, and Community Safeguards”

[FREE EVENT OPEN TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC]

Join us on Wednesday, May 12th at 7pm EDT for a symposium on Cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying can happen to any child – with long lasting harm.

This symposium exposes the harms of cyberbullying, a pandemic that is spreading online that causes irreversible consequences to lives of young people, explores solutions and seeks accountability.

Featured Remarks

Q&A with Expert Panelists

In a moderated Q&A discussion (including questions from the audience) we will discuss detection, mitigation, and safeguards through community efforts with three distinguished experts: Dr. Hinduja, Professor Sarah T. Roberts, and Professor Charalampos Chelmis.

The conversation will delve into the role of students, parents, and educators to seek effective measures to fight against cyberbullying. We will also examine the role of the tech sector, including the current state of technological solutions and AI-powered techniques that are being used for content moderation.

Moderator:

Juyoun Han, Esq. is a Partner in Eisenberg & Baum’s Artificial Intelligence Fairness and Data Privacy Practice Group. As a litigator, Ms. Han advocates for equity in the use of AI and works to eradicate systemic injustice, stemming from unchecked use of personal data and problematic automated decision systems.

Expert Panelist Bios:

Dr. Charalampos Chelmis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and Director of the Intelligent Big Data Analytics, Applications, and Systems (IDIAS) Lab, which is focused on socially important data science with a particular emphasis on models, algorithms, and systems to solve problems involving big, and often networked data. Dr. Chelmis has developed machine learning methods for cyberbullying characterization and detection, which have been presented at International conferences including TheWebConf and WebSci. Dr. Chelmis is also the co-organizer of the forthcoming tutorial Characterization, Detection, and Mitigation of Cyberbullying, which will be held as part of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference on June 21st, 2021. Dr. Chelmis can be found on Twitter at @CChelmis.

Dr. Sameer Hinduja is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University, Co-Director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and Faculty Associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. He is recognized internationally for his groundbreaking work on the subjects of cyberbullying and safe social media use, concerns that have paralleled the exponential growth in online communication by young people. He has written seven books, and his interdisciplinary research is widely published and cited in a number of peer-reviewed academic journals. As a noted speaker and expert on teens and social media use, Dr. Hinduja also trains students, educators, parents, mental health professionals, and other youth workers how to promote the positive use of technology. In addition, he is frequently asked to provide expert commentary by news organizations, and his work has been featured in venues that include CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, NPR’s All Things Considered, the BBC, and The New York Times. He has received Auburn University’s Global Anti-Bullying Hero Award, won Florida Atlantic University’s Researcher of the Year award, presented on cyberbullying at a Congressional Briefing on Capitol Hill, testified in front of the Attorney General and the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, and served as a Fulbright Specialist Scholar at Dublin City University. Dr. Hinduja is also the Co-Founder and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Bullying Prevention, a new peer-reviewed journal from Springer. You can follow him on Twitter at @hinduja.

Dr. Sarah T. Roberts is internationally recognized as a leading scholar on the emerging topic of commercial content moderation of social media (or CCM, for short), a term she coined to define the field study around the large-scale, industrial and for-pay practice of social media user-generated content adjudication. Professor Roberts is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in the Department of Information Studies where she serves as the co-founder and Co-Director of the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, and holds an appointment in Labor Studies. Her monograph, Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media, was released to critical acclaim in 2019 from Yale University Press, with a new edition to follow in 2021. Find her on Twitter at @ubiquity75.

We hope you’ll join us. Register here.

Fact Checking NYPD Facial Recognition Final Policy

/

The NYPD has published its final policies for all 36 of the technology tools that are used for surveillance within the City. Eisenberg & Baum’s AI Fairness and Data Privacy Practice Group and URBAN AI (founder Renee Cummings, criminologist and data activist at University of Virginia) examined the Facial Recognition Technology policy and found it to be riddled with problematic, false, and misleading information, some of which we outline here:

1234567891011121314

The final policies on facial recognition technology falls short of the NY POST ACT (Int 0487-2018), which mandated the NYPD to disclose the description, capabilities, rules, processes, guidelines, and any safeguards and security measures designed to protect the information collected.

New York City public seeks nothing less than an accurate, comprehensive, and full disclosure of the use of controversial and untested technologies that would impinge on important Constitutional Rights of individuals to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to be free from discrimination.

A breach of those rights allows individuals to sue for violations under Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1983) and under New York City and State Human Rights Laws. Citizens have also taken action against Clearview AI, under applicable laws including Privacy Law (i.e. lawsuits under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act), unlawful appropriation of likeness, unjust enrichment, and laws against unfair and deceptive business practices.

The NYPD’s relationship with Clearview AI has been discovered and outlined recently in Tate Ryan-Mosley’s April 9, 2021 article for MIT Technology Review, “The NYPD used a controversial facial recognition tool. Here’s what you need to know.”

Clearview AI has been controversial since Kashmir Hill’s January 19, 2020 scoop for The New York Times, “The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It,” which exposed the untested technology’s deep ties with police departments across the country. This story came on the heels of heightened scrutiny of facial recognition technology generally following the discovery that the technology’s accuracy decreased when applied to darker skinned female facial images, a finding that was made public by Joy Buolamwini and her seminal work on the subject for MIT’s Media Lab, “Gender Shades Project,” recently popularized in the film Coded Bias.

The use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement puts minority and immigrant communities at harm, as outlined in “ICE and DHS use Clearview AI, but won’t say how. They’re being sued for an answer.” by Anna Kramer on April 13, 2021 in Protocol.

We urge the NYPD Commissioner to strictly enforce the POST ACT and mandate accurate reporting of the policies as a whole, and take measures to ensure that any use of surveillance technologies are made transparent and that clear oversight mechanisms are established and implemented.

Further Reading: Final Report: Public Comments on NYPD Surveillance Technology Submitted by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP on Feb25th, 2021

Eisenberg & Baum’s Deaf Law Center Calls Out Injustice Against Police who Ordered 11 year-old Twins to Interpret while Detaining their Deaf Mother (Daily Moth)

/ ,

On April 11, 2021, a Black Deaf mother, Andrea “Dre” Hollingsworth, who was with her 11-year-old twins, was detained by North Las Vegas Police officers after being pulled over. The video of this police encounter depicts that the officers instructed Dre’s young children to act as interpreters.

In an interview with the Daily Moth, Directors of Eisenberg & Baum’s Deaf Law Center spoke out against the injustice that occurred.

[youtube_advanced url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5xkail52YY”]

Andrew Rozynski, Attorney & Co-Director of Deaf Law Center :

“It’s clearly a violation of the ADA. You cannot use children as interpreters. The reason is because the situation is very serious. You can’t rely on children for this because it can be traumatizing for the children and the parents. You should have a neutral and qualified interpreter providing full access either through VRI or an in-person interpreter.” 

Sheryl Eisenberg Michalowski, Co-Director of the Deaf Law Center:

“It is also important that police and professionals understand that relying on children — they do not have the capability to translate for any family member. They do not have the vocabulary or are able to explain things properly. This can lead to misunderstandings. It is very risky. So I strongly do not recommend children to be interpreters for family members.”

Proposed Class Action Settlement Gives UCLA Gynecologist Sex Abuse Victims Relief

/

Gynecological exams are important parts of women’s health. They are also often uncomfortable. But UCLA gynecologist James Heaps took his victims’ discomfort one step further, turning a necessary medical exam in to sex abuse. Now a proposed class action settlement could give all his patents some long-awaited relief.

UCLA Gynecologist Heaps Took Sexual Advantage of Patients

Julie Orsatti says she has flashbacks of Dr. James Heaps sexually assaulting her on the exam table. In 2019 she told USA Today that Heaps, a prominent gynecological oncologist working for the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), gave her false diagnoses of gynecological cancer to keep her coming back to see him every few months. She said “He had his hands all over my body.”

Orsatti is one of more than 100 patients who have raised sex abuse complaints against Heaps. Ellen Carter, another of Heaps’s victims described his actions as:

“Using his entire hand and palm of his hand all over, lingering for too long. . . . And looking and telling me that my breasts were beautiful.”

A third victim, Gabriela Vasquez has an even more chilling tale. She told USA Today that Heaps used an ultrasound instrument to forcibly simulate the act of having sex with her.

Orsatti, Carter, and Vasquez were among more than 200 women who reported sexual assault complaints to UCLA for Heaps’s behavior between 1983 and 2018. In response to the reports, California has revoked James Heaps’s medical license. He now faces criminal charges for sexual battery based on his actions against seven women. Heaps has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and criminal case is still pending.

University Agrees to Class Action Settlement with All James Heaps’ Patients

However, many of the women who experienced sexual abuse say that UCLA was partially responsible for his behavior. Seven plaintiffs sued the university on behalf of the more than 6,600 women Heaps treated while part of the student health center and UCLA Medical Center. UCLA said it began to investigate Dr. Heaps in December 2017, but he was allowed to retire the following year after the university declined to renew his contract.

The lawsuit ultimately settled in November 2020 with a proposed settlement agreement that would make $73 million available to Dr. Heaps’s sexual assault victims. Under the class-action portion of the lawsuit, James Heaps’s more than 6,600 patients will be entitled to at least $2,500 even if they have not come forward with sex abuse allegations. Those who were minors at the time of treatment and those who experienced more severe forms of sex abuse could be entitled to far more, $250,000 or more based on their individual experiences. UCLA will also pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees in addition to the settlement amount. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the federal district court judge on January 11, 2021.

Even those injured early in Dr. Heaps’s career may have a claim. In October 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newson signed a new law creating a one year window for victims to file legal claims against Heaps and UCLA even if their claims would otherwise be too old under the state’s statute of limitations. More than 100 former patients have already filed individual lawsuits. Others will be able to opt out of the class action if they believe their claim is different or more severe.

Class Action Lawsuit Leads to Changes in UCLA Sex Abuse Safety Policies

In addition to the financial part of the settlement, UCLA is also agreeing to make significant changes to the way things happen in its medical center. The goal is to protect patient safety going forward. Based on the settlement, UCLA has agreed to:

  • Implement a new process to investigate complaints of sex assault, sexual harassment and misconduct
  • Institute a formal chaperone policy
  • Train medical personnel on boundaries
  • Advertise patients’ reporting options
  • Investigate potential misconduct allegations when credentialing medical staff
  • Have their compliance monitored by an independent agent

These kinds of policy changes can be hard to win in an individual lawsuit. However, class actions demonstrate systemic problems and can more easily lead to systemic changes. While the relief granted to the individual patients and sex abuse victims is important, the changes UCLA has promised are designed to make sure that kind of sexual abuse never happen again.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, team of sexual abuse attorneys know how to use the tools of individual and class action lawsuits to get relief for sex abuse victims. If you have been sexually assaulted by a medical provider, we can speak with you from our headquarters in the heart of New York City, or conference with you remotely, to help you get compensation for the harm done. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to a sex abuse attorney.

Eisenberg & Baum’s Deaf Law Center Speaks against North Las Vegas Police Unlawfully Using Children as Interpreters (FOX 5 Vegas Station)

/

On the evening of April 7th, a Deaf woman, Andrea “Dre” Hollingsworth, was handcuffed and detained by the North Las Vegas Police. The police made 11-year-old twin daughters of Hollingsworth interpret for them during Hollingsworth’s encounter with the police. Hollingsworth says that her daughters were traumatized. Such an act would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Eisenberg & Baum’s Attorney Andrew Rozynski (Partner, Deaf Law Center) spoke with local FOX 5 Vegas station regarding the situation.

“Requiring an 11-year-old to interpret in a police situation is against the Americans with Disabilities Act. There are regulations in there that expressly prohibit children from being used as interpreters…There are services out there such as video relay, in which someone can bring up an interpreter on an iPhone or iPad.”

Read the article at FOX 5 Vegas.

Eisenberg & Baum’s Deaf Law Center, led by Directors Sheryl Eisenberg Michalowski and Andrew Rozynski, has been advocating on behalf of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community across the country to make sure that Deaf or Hard of Hearing individuals get the protection they deserve to the fullest extent of the law.

State Bar of Washington Mishandles Employee’s Harassment Claim

/

The State Bar of Washington — the organization that oversees and regulates all lawyers in the state — received a scathing report, criticizing how it mishandled the investigation of an employee’s sexual harassment claim. Find out what happened, and what employees can do when board members take advantage of their position.

WSBA Staff Member Accuses Board Member of Sexual Harassment

The Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) has a public mission to “serve the public and the members of the Bar, to ensure the integrity of the legal profession, and to champion justice.” The WSBA is a mandatory bar association, overseeing more than 40,000 attorneys and legal professionals across the state. But when in 2018, a staff member came forward alleging sexual harassment against a member of the Board of Governors, a recently released report says that the Bar’s response was anything but just.

Kara Ralph only been employed by the WSBA for a month. She had come on as the association’s events and sponsorship specialist, and was helping to put on a bar event and retreat at a hotel in Walla Walla, Washington in July 2016. After dinner one evening, Ms. Ralph was sitting alone at the hotel bar when newly elected board member Dan’L W. Bridges sat down with her and struck up a conversation. Ms. Ralph reports that early in the conversation, Mr. Bridges told her that while he was married, he didn’t believe in being monogamous.

Ms. Ralph said when she eventually left the bar, Mr. Bridges followed. He got into the elevator with her and rode past his floor saying he wanted to go to Ms. Ralph’s room. When the elevator reached her floor, Ms. Ralph stepped out first. She remembered telling Bridges that if he got out of the elevator “we’re going to have a problem.”

WSBA Mishandles Claim of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Ms. Ralph’s story came forward two years later, in 2018, when she told then-board member Athan Papailiou what had happened at a legal conference. Papailious in turn reported the incident to WSBA leadership. The board hired Jillian Barron, an employment lawyer, to investigate the incident. Barron found Ms. Ralph’s story credible, reporting that Mr. Bridge’s account of the incident “evolved” over her two meetings with him. However, she also reported that there had been no other reports of sexual harassment since that time. Ms. Barron did not say whether Mr. Bridges had violated any laws or WSBA policy, or recommend any disciplinary actions.

It was what the WSBA did with that report that raised eyebrows within the legal community. The board went into a private-session meeting to discuss the report. Mr. Bridges was included in that meeting and allowed to defend himself both verbally and in writing, including many misstatements of Ms. Barron’s findings. Immediately after the private session, the board moved to public session where they elected Mr. Bridges as the board treasurer for 2018-2019 in a contested election.

State Supreme Court Orders Review of Botched Investigation

On January 18, 2019, 34 out of 150 staff members signed onto a letter calling on the Board to review its policies and create better systems for future sexual harassment reports. A few days later, a similar letter was set to the State Supreme Court.

As an employer, the Washington State Bar Association had the same obligation to take reasonable steps to investigate and respond to allegations of sexual harassment. Those steps likely include giving the accused and the accuser the same access to the decision-making body, and having clear criteria for when removal of a board member, staff member or volunteer was appropriate. The employees argued that making its decision in a closed-door meeting and letting Mr. Bridges participate, the WSBA created a hostile work environment and discouraged other staff members from coming forward with future incidents.

“From our perspective, a colleague disclosed an allegation of harassment by a board member and the board’s response to that disclosure resulted in a process that lacked proper oversight, transparency, and consideration of our colleague’s safety and well-being,” the letter said.

Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst of the Washington Supreme Court responded by appointing an independent investigator, Beth Van Moppes, to review the allegations that the Bar had created a hostile work environment. Ms. Van Moppes interviewed board members, staff, and others, and reviewed other information about the incident. In the resulting report, she criticized the board for not taking action against Mr. Bridges even after Ms. Ralph’s complaints were found credible.

“To a reasonable person outside the board, it appeared that the [board] had voted to promote an individual they knew had committed inappropriate conduct and was deemed less than credible.”

She also found Bridge’s participation in the meeting “egregious”, finding it more likely than not “that the working environment for the WSBA employees was hostile, intimidating, and insulting, as a result of the board’s failures.”

Board Arrangement Complicates Sexual Harassment Claims

One issue addressed in Van Moppes’s report was whether the board was responsible for the investigation, or just the Executive Director. Boards of directors can play different roles in companies and organizations. Some have more control over workplace operations while others are simply advisory. Because board members are not employees of the company, when they sexually harass employees this lack of formal employment complicates an already difficult sexual harassment claim.

During Ms. Van Moppes’s investigation, several board members raised this as a defense. Van Moppes rejected their efforts to narrow the scope of her investigation. The EEOC Guidance on Employer Liability for Harassment says that a hostile work environment can be created by non-employee conduct. That, together with the frequent communication between board members and staff at WSBA, showed that the Board of Governors’ actions could and likely did create a hostile work environment for its employees, including Ms. Ralph.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced gender discrimination and sexual harassment attorneys have dealt with harassment by boad members before. We know how to fight claims that employers cannot hold board members responsible for their actions, and when to file a claim with the EEOC or state human rights offices to protect the employees of organizations like state bar associations. Contact us to schedule a consultation at our office in New York City, or over the phone.

NYPD Has Published Final Policies on Surveillance Technology

/

 

NYPD Has Published Final Policies on Surveillance Technology

Thanks to the passage of the Post Act in June, 2020, the NYPD was required to publish the department’s draft policies on the use and impact of every surveillance technology currently in use — 36 tools in total — within 180 days. Upon publishing the draft policies, Eisenberg & Baum gathered and submitted public comments within the 45 day window, and on April 11, 2021, after reviewing all public comments, the NYPD has published the department’s final policies.

What do you think about these updated policies? Take a look here.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver Sued for Sexual Abuse

/

A lawsuit filed late last year in Canada’s British Columbia Supreme Court against Vancouver’s Roman Catholic Archdiocese is once again drawing attention to the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. The civil lawsuit, while filed under Canadian law rather than U.S. or New York law, raises questions about whether the Church is responsible for its priests’ sexual actions, and how long a sexual abuse victim can wait before coming forward with his claims.

Vancouver Lawsuit Calls Out Roman Catholic Church’s Child Sexual Abuse

A lawsuit filed in Canada against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver is the latest in a string of international criminal charges and legal cases against priests, bishops, and the Catholic Church as a whole. The Vancouver complaint, filed anonymously by “John Doe” on October 23, 2020, alleges that Father John Kilty, Parish pastor of the North Vancouver Holy Trinity Parish, sexually assaulted the plaintiff when he was six years old. According to the suit, Kilty groped and touched the plaintiff sexually, drugged him, removed his clothing, and took sexual actions against him. Kilty is also said to have psychologically groomed and manipulated the plaintiff.

The complaint also named Raymond Clavin, a former Christian Brothers coach and employee of the Catholic Independent Schools of Vancouver (CISVA) as a defendant. It says he threatened the plaintiff with harm, removed his clothing, and performed sexual actions against him.

Decades-Old Sexual Abuse Claims Name Dead Priest as Defendant

The events that were described in the complaint happened in 1974 and 1975. Father Kilty’s estate is being sued because he had passed away before it was filed. Usually, civil lawsuits for physical and sexual assault need to be filed within a few years of the incident. This is called a Statute of Limitations. However, many jurisdictions, including New York State, make exceptions for child sexual abuse.

New York’s Child Victims Act extends the statute of limitations in both criminal cases and civil lawsuits involving sexual abuse, incest, or child pornography. Had the Vancouver lawsuit been filed in this state, “John Doe” would have until age 55 to raise his complaint. While this law does not apply to Canadian lawsuits, it appears that the British Colombia Limitations Act does not apply to claims of sexual assault.

Is the Roman Catholic Archdiocese Responsible for Its Priest’s Actions?

In addition to the Father and the Catholic school coach, John Doe named the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver (RCAV) itself as a defendant in the lawsuit. The complaint said:

“At all times material to the abuse, the RCAV and/or the CISVA were complicit in a culture of entrenched clericalism that enabled perpetrators of sexual abuse to continue to commit their grievous crimes, and wherein witnesses, complainants and whistleblowers were silenced.”

It seeks to hold the Catholic Church itself for the behavior of its priests and employees.

The Church certainly has known about sexual abuse allegations among its ranks before. In 2019, the Archdiocese there had identified 36 priests in British Columbia, turned them over to non-religious officials for investigation. This included included complaints of sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as other priests who were serving in the ministry at the time. It isn’t clear if Father Kilty was among them. Closer to home, in 2018, a Pennsylvania Grand Jury reported 300 “predator priests” who had sexually abused over 1,000 child victims dating back to 1947.

But can the Church be held accountable for its priests’ actions directly? Again, Canadian law may not be the same as the law here in the U.S. and New York. In the U.S., generally speaking, civil lawsuits can be filed against employers based on the employer’s negligent hiring, training, or supervision of the abuser, as well as failures to investigate or act on complaints or warning signs. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that employment discrimination laws don’t prevent Catholic schools from firing employees for discriminatory reasons. However, there isn’t clear law about whether the “ministerial exception” extends to a religious employer who fails to investigate claims of sexual harassment and abuse by those ministers.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our clergy sexual abuse attorneys know how to work with the law, and employers, religious and otherwise to get the victims of sexual abuse the relief they need. We can negotiate with religious institutions and, when necessary, fight back against ministerial exception defenses to make sure your rights are protected, and your needs met. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to an attorney.

Cyberbullicide

/

Cyberbullicide, defined by Cyberbullying Research Center’s Sameer Hinduja and Justin Patchin as “suicide indirectly or directly influenced by experiences with online aggression” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009),” has been on the rise in recent years: “One major outcome that we have seen in recent years has been the increase in suicides related to an experience with bullying.” 

The phenomenon of cyberbullicide, while already increasing, has been potentially worsened by the mass isolation that individuals in many communities have experienced throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. 

What’s happening here, and what factors are contributing to the increase?

Cyberbullying + Suicide:

“The link between traditional bullying and suicidal ideation was established previously in research, but only within the twenty-first century have scientists began to research the relation of suicide to cyberbullying. One study that surveyed students about whether they were ever cyberbullied and whether they had suicidal ideation and/or attempts found that 19.7% of females and 20.9% of male respondents were seriously thinking about attempting suicide, while 17% of females and 20.2% of male respondents attempted suicide. Cyberbullying prevalence rates ranged from 9.1% to 23.1% for offending, and victimization rates ranged from 5.7% to 18.3% (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). In another study done in 2014, it was found that school bullying and cyberbullying is 27.4% prevalent and those who report either one are at higher risk for reporting two straight weeks of sadness, suicidal ideation and attempts, and trying to get treatment for their suicidal tendencies (Messias, Kindrick & Castro, 2014).”

  • Reference: The Connection Between Cyberbullying and Teenage Suicide: An Honors Thesis
  • Citation: Sierra Crosby (University of Maine) Spring 5-2018
  • Link: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1323&context=honors

New Digital Technologies Enable Anonymity:

“The anonymity of cyberbullying removes many restraints on meanness and amplifies the ferocity of aggression. It’s easier to inflict pain and suffering on others when you don’t have to look them in the eye. Constantly evolving digital technologies enable new ways of spreading false information about targets.”

  • Reference: Bullying
  • Citation: Psychology Today
  • Link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bullying

Anonymity Desensitizes the Perpetrator:

Anonymity based apps “where users’ posted content is not attached to user names or profiles were reported to be more conducive to blatant bullying.”

Masking one’s identity in the online world (anonymity) has a contributing factor which can desensitize the perpetrator, is frequently emphasized in the literature.” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009)

  • Reference: Social Media Companies’ Cyberbullying Policies
  • Citation: Tijana Milosevic University of Oslo, Norway 1-10-2016
  • Link: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5320/1818

Anonymous Q&A Apps Adversely Affect Teens:

“It can bring out the worst in some tweens and teens when they feel like they can ask their friends questions anonymously without having to take responsibility for their words….Time and time again, we’ve seen anonymous Q&A apps like the YOLO app turn into breeding grounds for negativity and bullying.”

  • Reference: Yolo App Is Bad For Teens (Parent Safety Guide & Video)
  • Citation: Smart Social 05/30/2020
  • Link: https://smartsocial.com/yolo-app-snapchat/

Teens Are Less Likely to Report Anonymous Cyberbullying:

“Anonymity creates a power imbalance between harasser and victim which lends itself to bullying.”

Low reporting with anonymous cyberbullying- Only 12.5%  because teens:

  • Worry that Social Media/Internet Access will be eliminated if they report
  • Lack of trust in reporting because adults will not keep it confidential and teens will be socially excluded
  • Worry that they cannot prove that bullying occurred because of anonymity which leads to feeling more threatened and helpless.
  • Fear of “I told you so” response from parents who have warned against social media.
  • Reference: Exploring the Impact of Anonymity on Cyberbullying in Adolescents; An Integrative Literature Review
  • Citation: Brooke Mascotto BScN University of Ottawa, 2015
  • Link: https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/5986/Mascotto_Brooke_MN_2015.pdf