Fired for Getting Divorced: Columbia Professor Files Gender Bias and Marital Status Discrimination Lawsuit

/

Pschiatric professor Maria Karayiorgou has filed a gender bias and marital status discrimination lawsuit against Columbia University under the New York City Human Rights Law. She says her invitation to the Zucker Institute was rescinded after her ex-husband notified the university of their divorce. Find out what happens when employers take sides, and whether you can be fired for getting divorced in New York City.

Did Columbia University Fire This Professor for Getting Divorced?

Dr. Maria Karayiorgou is a distinguished psychiatric research scientist. Between 1996 and 2006, she led a research laboratory named after her in association with the Rockefeller University. There she identified the first genetic risk factor for schizophrenia and was credited for her use of mouse modeling studies.

Starting in 1998, her husband, Dr. Joseph Gogos, at the time a neuroscience post-doctoral candidate at Columbia, began to work with the Karayiorgou Laboratory. Over the next ten years, he transitioned to working on the mouse modeling portion of the project full-time.

Then, in 2006, Karayiorgou was offered a position as a Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University. Within four years, she became the Acting Director of the Medical Genetics Division in the Department of Psychiatry. In 2012 to 2013, Columbia launched the Zucker Institute. Karayiorgou was a featured speaker in a fundraising event for the institute in May 2013. Gogos became a member immediately as part of the Neuroscience Department. However, Karayiorgou’s invitation came later, in May 2014.

Then Karayiorgou and Gogos’s marriage broke down. Their divorce was finalized in December 2014 and in March 2015, Gogos emailed Columbia representatives telling them he did not want to work with Dr. Karayiorgou at the Zuckerman Institute. The representatives responded by rescinding Karayiorgou’s invitation to the Institute, emailing her to say “so when the acrimonious separation happened, there was little choice but to back Joseph.”

Karayiorgou objected to the dismissal. She filed a formal complaint for workplace discrimination with the Columbia Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. When the university dismissed her concerns, she filed for gender bias in a marital status discrimination lawsuit in New York state court.

Is Marital Status Discrimination Illegal?

Most people know that it is illegal for your employer to treat you differently because of your gender. Sometimes family status can play a role in pregnancy discrimination cases. But is marital status discrimination illegal?

Unlike sex (gender), marital status is not a protected trait under the federal Civil Rights Act. Another federal law, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, protects federal employees from marital status discrimination. However, that law does not apply to private or state-level employees. That is probably why Dr. Karayiorgou based her gender and marital status discrimination lawsuit on the New York City Human Rights Law, instead.

The New York City Human Rights Law says it is unlawful discrimination for any employer to make hiring, firing, or compensation decisions based on a person’s marital status. In other words, in New York City, you can’t be fired for getting divorced.

To prove her case, Dr. Karayiorgou had to show:

  1. That she is a member of a protected class
  2. That she was qualified for the position
  3. That she was terminated or suffered an “adverse employment action”
  4. The discharge happened under circumstances that inferred discrimination

Once she established these four things, the attention of the court swung to the university. To avoid a finding of marital status discrimination, it needed to show a legitimate, independent, non-discriminatory reason for taking the employment action. If it did, then as a plaintiff, Dr. Karayiorgou  could present evidence that this non-discriminatory reason was a pretext, and not the real reason the action was taken.

New York Supreme Court Judge Points to Gender Bias in the Workplace, and the Legal Briefs

Columbia University filed a motion in the lawsuit, asking New York Supreme Court Judge Lynn R. Kotler to rule there was no discrimination. It claimed that the only reason Dr. Karayiorgou’s invitation to the Zucker Institute had been offered in the first place was because of her work with Dr. Gogos. Essentially, Columbia’s lawyers attributed all Dr. Karayiorgou’s work with mouse modeling to her husband, calling her “limited presence” at the institute “entirely dependent… upon her continued research and collaboration” with Gogos.

But the judge didn’t believe them. Judge Kotler called Dr. Karayiorgou “a leading researcher and scientist” and noted that her invitation came almost five years after Gogos had begun working to develop the institute. The invitation made no reference to Gogos, nor did it imply she was to play any kind of supporting role to her ex-husband. In addressing Dr. Karayiorgou’s gender discrimination claims, the judge said:

“Columbia reduced plaintiff to being a supportive figure to Gogos even though she was the one who had made the breakthrough genetic discovery and created the mouse model.”

She found that a jury could determine that Columbia had discriminated against Dr. Karayiorgou on both gender and marital status grounds, and denied Columbia’s motion to dismiss the case.

At the end of Judge Kotler’s opinion, she had some stern words for Columbia’s attorneys:

Finally, defense counsel Wegrzyn’s characterization of plaintiff is not only insulting but [borders] on sexism. Plaintiff’s credentials, including her discovery on the 22q11 gene which is widely recognized in the scientific community, the grants and awards she has received and the papers she has written belie counsel’s gross mischaracterization of the plaintiff. While zealous advocacy is welcome and often appreciated, the insinuation that plaintiff played a secondary or subservient role to Gogos and that her career as a scientist was as a result of Gogos is an inappropriate mischaracterization of the facts.”

As the judge’s comment shows, it wasn’t just Columbia’s hiring decisions that were based on gender bias, their legal defense was as well. Fortunately, Judge Kotler saw through the attorneys’ mischaracterizations, and Dr. Karayiorgou’s gender and marital status discrimination case will live on to go before a jury.

At Eisenberg and Baum, LLP, our New York City-based gender discrimination attorneys know how to make city and state laws work for employees whose cases don’t quite fit under federal law. We know how to use the New York State Human Rights Law to protect against marital status discrimination, and what you can do if you were fired for getting divorced. We will help you negotiate with your employer, file the necessary administrative claims, and represent you in court. Contact us to schedule a consultation.

African Americans Facing Racial Discrimination Must Choose Between COVID and Masks

/

African Americans, especially larger black men, often face racial discrimination and fear at work and by their neighborhood police officers. In 2020 and 2021, the Coronavirus pandemic response had everyone from the CDC to local mayors begging people to mask up. But for African Americans, the choice was whether to face increased racial discrimination by wearing a mask and covering their face or exposing it and risk death from COVID-19.

African American Discrimination Means Being Careful About Clothing

Gabriel Felix, a psychiatry resident in a Boston-area hospital, has always planned his wardrobe carefully. A 6’3” tall black man, he has faced racial discrimination and microexpressions of discomfort just walking down the street. Felix, like many African Americans, makes strategic choices every day about how to dress and behave in a way that won’t expose him to racist assumptions and an unnecessary conversation with police. It may be as simple as wearing a college T-shirt while jogging or making that trip to the grocery store before sunset. They know it doesn’t take much for a black man to go from neighbor to suspect.

Then came COVID-19. As scientists and government agencies came to understand how the virus was transmitted, cities, states, and even the Centers for Disease Control all began to recommend residents wear masks to prevent the spread of the virus. Eventually those recommendations became mandates. Those not wearing masks could be fined or removed from stores.

That left Felix with a dilemma. As a black man, mask mandates set up a kind of Catch-22. If they stayed bare-faced they could mitigate the effects of systemic racism in their daily lives, but they risked catching and spreading the deadly virus. However, if they wore the masks they would run the risk of facing increased discrimination just because someone couldn’t see their faces.

Police Respond to Dangers of Black Man Wearing a Mask

That’s what happened to Illinois State Senator Kam Buckner in June 2020. At 35 years old and 6’4” tall, Buckner was recently racially targeted coming out of a Chicago hardware store. He was wearing a mask, as required by a state-wide executive order. As white customers walked past, a uniformed police officer stopped Buckner and asked him for his receipt and his ID. Looking down at the flowers he had just purchased, Buckner tried to avoid escalating the situation. But he still asked why the officer had stopped him. The officer told him, “I can’t see your face. You look like you might have been up to something.” The brief police encounter bothered Buckner.

“It woke me up in the middle of the night, and I said this is not OK,” said Buckner. “I thought about all of the millions of Black men around the country being told they have to wear masks. We are extremely apprehensive about the masks, even though we know it’s the right thing to do.”

Buckner was hardly the only person facing African American discrimination in the face of the mask mandates. Similar stories began to emerge across the country. In Florida, Dr. Armen Henderson was arrested for unloading supplies out of a van in his front yard while he was volunteering to give COVID tests to homeless people in Miami. In Wood River, Illinois — the same state where Buckner was stopped for complying with the state-wide mask mandate — two young Black men were escorted out of a Walmart by an officer with his hand on his gun. The police officer told them their masks were illegal.

Vickie Mays, a distinguished professor of health policy and management at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health put the issue into perspective:

“Which death do they choose? Covid-19 or police shooting? . . .  We have African Americans who have been dragged out of stores, who have been ordered by police and store guards to pull their masks down or take their masks off.”

As Workers Get Vaccinated, Discrimination Could Follow Them Back to Work

Now, almost a year after Felix wrote his article describing his concern, states are beginning to open up and workers are being recalled into their offices and workplaces. Many have not yet received a vaccine and remain vulnerable to the virus. They will need to decide whether to come to work wearing a mask and risk racial discrimination by customers or even their coworkers who mistake them for a “suspicious” masked black man or woman.

But employers can help. There are several steps companies can take to protect their customer-facing employees from discrimination and avoid the disruption caused by an unnecessary police visit. This could include:

  • Racial discrimination training for returning employees
  • Providing branded facemasks that make it easy for customers to identify workers as employees
  • Enforcing mandatory mask policies on premises
  • Requiring supervisor intervention if a customer behaves in a racist way toward a worker
  • Investigating allegations of racial discrimination between coworkers

Black Americans shouldn’t be forced to choose between a deadly disease and a risk of being shot by police. While the country continues to wrestle with systemic racism, employers need to do their part to keep their returning workers safe, whether or not they are wearing masks.

At Eisenberg & Baum, we understand how hard it is for Black workers to navigate racial discrimination at work. Our employment discrimination attorneys, can help employees file their claims under Title VII and state civil rights laws when employers fail to respond to racism by customers or coworkers. We will push for system-wide changes, at work and in the community, so that you will feel safe on the job. If you have been the victim racial discrimination, contact us. We’ll meet with you and help create a strategy that protects you and your coworkers against ongoing racial bias and poor treatment.

The Cyberbullying Symposium Recording and Video Message from Congressman Josh Gottheimer

/

The Cyberbullying Symposium Recording

Eisenberg & Baum hosted The Cyberbullying Symposium on Wednesday, May 12th, moderated by Partner Juyoun Han, Esq. Watch the full event by clicking the image below (CC available):

Learn more about the class action lawsuit against Snapchat, YOLO, & LMK (anonymous apps):

 

If you experienced similar harm from apps sold by the defendants or by other computer apps, social media platforms, and more, you can write to attorney Juyoun Han at jhan@eandblaw.com (moderator of event).

 

Follow up with presenters and panel experts:

 

Organizations & Resources referenced in the chat

There were many excellent contributions in the “chat” made by both panelists and attendees:

  • Cyberbullying Research Center, Dr. Sameer Hinduja’s organization:
    • https://cyberbullying.org/resources/parents – my favorite resources, all free, all PDFs – all research-informed
    • https://cyberbullying.org/social-media-and-tech-misuse-scenarios – the 23 scenarios we’ve written to allow you to have conversations with your child and give them an “action plan” as to what to do if they or a friend is targeted.
    • https://cyberbullying.org/questions-parents-should-ask-their-children-about-technology – my list of questions you can ask your child/teen.
  • Tyler Clementi Foundation: https://tylerclementi.org/pledge/
  • Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood https://commercialfreechildhood.org/campaigns/
  • LiveMore ScreenLess  https://www.livemorescreenless.org
  • David’s Legacy Foundation: DavidsLegacy.org If you live in Texas we would love to connect and work with you as we expand our mission: tbruno@davidslegacy.org
  • LookUp.Live and Headstream: youth-focused organizations working on empowering youth to create solutions
  • Kids Before Screens: kidsbeforescreens.net Online safety tips
  • Healthy Screen Habits: Petition against Under 13 Instagram: @healthyscreenhabits. https://ccfc.salsalabs.org/noinstagramforkids
  • Rethink Words: http://www.rethinkwords.com/
  • SoulShoppe.org works with grade schools to educate students on how to be an upstander, an ally, and recognize that people doing bullying have “a full balloon”
  • Gabb Wireless is great for kids-looks like a smartphone and allows calls, texts. take photos, etc. but no apps or internet
  • Gryphon and OpenDNS (free) are helpful for parent controls, and the “Gryphon” router combined with Gryphon home bound for mobile device as a great hardware/software options
  • Childhood 2.0: https://www.childhood2movie.com/ Bark is great, and they have produced a wonderful documentary called Childhood 2.0, available on YouTube.
  • Sameer Hinduja: If you google “Transparency Report” and the name of an app – if they have such a report, it will turn up (and more companies are releasing this) – those reports give you numbers related to problematic content, manual takedowns, automatic (algorithmic-based) takedowns, etc. (Caveat From Sarah T. Roberts (UCLA//C2i2): Firms’ transparency reports are self-reported.)

 

Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) video:

LAST BUT NOT LEAST: A video contribution from Rep. Josh Gottheimer, which could not be played at the symposium due to technical difficulties.

[youtube_advanced url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVOxXUrGp9s”]

 

LA Times Reports on Class Action Lawsuit filed by Eisenberg & Baum over cyberbullying

/ ,

LA Times is reporting on the class action lawsuit that Eisenberg & Baum have filed on behalf of Carson Bride, a young cyberbullying victim, against app makers of Snapchat, YOLO, and LMK, opining that “Suit against Snap over suicide may test platform protections.” 

Read more at LA Times: “A teen who was bullied on Snapchat died. His mom is suing to hold social media liable”.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo Faces Sexual Harassment Allegations

/

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has come under fire and is facing a call to resign in the wake of several sexual harassment allegations. The claims cut short Cuomo’s previous popularity from his response to the Coronavirus, and show how quickly public perception can change.

Aide Says Governor Cuomo Made His Workplace Unsafe for Young Women

On February 24, 2021, Lindsey Boylan, a former deputy secretary of economic development and special advisor to the New York Governor’s office, published an article on Medium, “My story of working with Governor Cuomo.” The article alleged that the governor had invited her to play “strip poker” and gave her an unwanted kiss on the lips as she was leaving his office. She described her working environment with Cuomo saying:

“Governor Andrew Cuomo has created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected. His inappropriate behavior toward women was an affirmation that he liked you, that you must be doing something right. He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences.”

Boylan had previously posted several tweets about Cuomo’s harassment, but in the midst of the more pressing news in December 2020, they had not received much attention. When Andrew Cuomo’s name came up as a possible candidate for U.S. Attorney General for the Biden Administration, she knew she had to do more.

Governor Guomo’s intimidation and abuse was a well-known secret among the New York political scene. Boylan reported that Assemblymember Ron Kim had spoken out publicly about the way he was treated while Mayor Bill de Blasio said, “the bullying is nothing new.” In reporting her own harassment, Boylan said she was one of many, but that most were too afraid to speak up.

Five More Step Forward with Sexual Harassment Allegations

Ms. Boylan’s article rallied several other former-staff members to come forward with their own stories. Charlotte Bennette, had resigned her position as an executive assistant and health policy advisor in November 2020. She told the New York Times that he had questioned her sex life, including asking whether she had ever had sex with older men. Andrew Cuomo allegedly commented that he would be willing to have a relationship “with anyone above the age of 22.” Ms. Bennett is 25. She said:

“I understood that the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared.”

Anna Ruch came forward on March 1, 2021, saying that in September 2019, she had met Governor Cuomo at a wedding reception. She said Cuomo put his hand on her bare lower back. When she removed it, Cuomo called her “aggressive,” put his hands on her cheeks, and asked if he could kiss her. A friend nearby caught a picture of the moment.

Ana Liss, another former aide, reported that the governor asked if she had a boyfriend, kissed her hand, and greeted her by saying “Hey, sweetheart,” before hugging her and giving her a kiss on both cheeks. According to the USA today:

“In an interview, Liss said she was ‘not claiming sexual harassment per se,’ but felt the administration ‘wasn’t a safe space for young women to work.’”

Karn Hinton’s story is older. She worked as a consultant with Andrew Cuomo when he was the federal housing secretary under Bill Clinton in the 1990s. She said he called her to his hotel room where the conversation turned personal, ultimately resulting in an uncomfortably long and intimate hug.

Finally, the Times Union reported an unnamed female aide experienced direct sexual assault while in Gov. Cuomo’s employment. She reported that he reached under her blouse and groped her. That woman, apparently still employed by the governor’s office has reported his behavior to her supervisor, and an investigation is ongoing.

Democrats Call for Cuomo’s Resignation Following Sexual Harassment Claims

The allegations of sexual harassment and assault against Governor Andrew Cuomo have triggered a state-level investigation, as well as a political response from Cuomo’s fellow Democrats. Governor Cuomo issued a statement apologizing for any pain he may have caused, suggesting his joking remarks about his employees’ personal lives and relationships may have been “misinterpreted” as “unwanted flirtations.”  He told reporters:

“Women have a right to come forward and be heard and I encourage that fully. . . . But I also want to be clear: There is still a question of the truth. I did not do what has been alleged. Period.”

Cuomo has authorized New York Attorney General Letitia James to appoint outside investigators, Jooh H. Kim, a former acting U.S. attorney and Anne L. Clark, a labor law attorney, to follow up on the allegations.

But several New York politicians aren’t satisfied. The State Assembly has launched an impeachment investigation through its Judiciary Committee. Thirteen of the state’s congressional representatives, including the influential Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and state Senate Majority Leader Andrew Stewart-Cousins, have called for him to resign. However, Cuomo refuses, saying those calling for his resignation are being “reckless” and “bowing to cancel culture.”

Responding to Sexual Harassment by Elected Officials

Government employees, including aides and policy advisors, are entitled to the same protections against workplace sexual harassment as other workers. This includes having their employer (the State) investigate their claims and take reasonable steps to prevent future abuse. However, when the harasser is an elected official, the internal response is limited. In those cases it may take an impeachment or a recall to remove the offending government employee.

That can be difficult when the politician in question is as popular as Andrew Cuomo. The Governor enjoyed a popularity bump due to his public statements in response to the Coronavirus in the first half of 2020. Now, in response to Ms. Boylan and her fellow aides’ allegations, it appears public opinion has begun to turn, improving the aides chances of receiving real relief for the sexual harassment and abuse they experienced while working for him.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, we have sexual harassment attorneys ready to help you fight back against sexual harassment within government offices. If you are a staffer facing discrimination, contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

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.