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

Parents Being Wrongfully Fired During the Pandemic

/

The COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on everyone. But parents, especially single parents, have faced particular challenges related to balancing work and home-schooling as Coronavirus has closed schools and demanded parents facilitate virtual learning. Even with federal laws designed to protect them, many parents say they have been wrongfully fired during the pandemic for trying to take care of their children.

December 2020 Job Losses Were All Women

Women have always faced uphill climbs to match men’s employment numbers, receive equal pay for their work, and overcome generations of gender discrimination. But in early 2020, for a brief three months, women held more jobs than men in the U.S. economy. Then, the pandemic hit, and those numbers plummeted. In December 2020, after a year of unparalleled ups and downs, U.S. employers cut 140,000 jobs. In the wake of COVID-19, these numbers may not be that surprising, but the demographic breakdown was:

  • Women lost 156,000 jobs
  • Men gained 16,000 jobs

Obviously, there were men who lost their jobs in December 2020, particularly among black and Latino populations. However, these numbers were more than offset by white men stepping back into the workplace. What caused this stark gender gap? Many believe it is the number of women having to do double duty in their jobs and as part-time educators for their children learning remotely.

What the Families First Coronavirus Response Act Meant for Parents

In March 2020, as COVID-19 emergency responses were just getting started, the U.S. legislature passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. This stop-gap law was designed to protect employees of smaller businesses with 50 to 500 employees who needed to take time off because of COVID-19. The first federal mandatory paid leave law, it required employers to give eligible employees:

  • 2 Weeks of fully paid sick leave if they were quarantined or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and waiting for a medical diagnosis
  • 2 Weeks of partially paid sick leave to care for someone quarantined or children whose school or child care was closed because of COVID-19
  • Up to 10 weeks of partially paid family and medical leave to care for a child whose school or child care was closed due to COVID-19 (after they had been employed for at least 30 days)

While the Coronavirus continues to close schools and force employees to work remotely into 2021, the protection provided by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act expired on December 31, 2020. Whether Congress will renew the protections in the new year remains to be determined at the time this article was written.

Parents Wrongfully Fired for COVID-19 Related Childcare Challenges

Recently, there have been a surge of lawsuits filed by parents who say they were wrongfully fired, denied parental leave, or subjected to workplace discrimination because of COVID-19. Between March and November 2020, there were at least 40 lawsuits filed alleging family status discrimination. They say they were wrongfully fired in violation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. According to these lawsuits, parents were denied parental leave or retaliated against when they returned to work after caring for their children or sick family members.

Parental discrimination in these lawsuits took a variety of forms, but many involved employers objecting to children interfering with employees working from home. For example, one California mom says her boss fired her after complaining that her 1-year-old was making noise during conference calls. Her manager told her, “You need to take care of your kid situation.”

Others say they were fired or threatened with demotion because they tried to exercise their rights to leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. A Texas dad was told to “keep your mouth shut” when he asked for time off to care for his three children. Joan Williams, a law professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law said:

“What we’re seeing is a wave of discrimination. . . . We’re going to be seeing the economic consequences of this period — and they’re going to be to impoverish women and children for decades.”

What to Do if You Were Wrongfully Fired During the Pandemic

If you think you were wrongfully fired during the pandemic, you should speak to an experienced workplace discrimination attorney right away. While the Families First Coronavirus Response Act was new and short-lived, violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act provide a model for workplace discrimination attorneys to fight back against employers who discriminated against parents caring for their kids during this especially difficult time.

At Eisenberg & Baum, our experienced employment discrimination attorneys understand the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and can help you enforce it. If you have been wrongfully fired because you tried to care for your children, we can help. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

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, May12th at 7pm EDT for a symposium on Cyberbullying, hosted by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP.

“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.

Organ Transplant Discrimination: Disability Will No Longer Dismiss You From the List

/

An intellectual or developmental disability shouldn’t have any effect on your access to necessary medical care, but patients with Down syndrome and other conditions routinely face organ transplant discrimination. Now states and the federal government are taking on the rights of disabled Americans, to make sure they have equal access to the organ transplant list.

Transplant Centers Pass Over Patients with Other Disabilities

It might seem like medical professionals would be the last people to discriminate against someone because they had a disability. You might assume that doctors, medical facilities, and researchers would understand comorbidity and the need for people with disabilities to have access to necessary, life-saving treatment like organ transplants.

It is common for people born with Down syndrome to also have heart conditions. The National Down Syndrome Society says about half of all infants born with the syndrome have a heart defect. Many of these children and their families face a long journey of surgeries and other medical treatments. However, when those surgeries aren’t enough many find themselves in need of an organ transplant.

Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, those disabled individuals may not get access to the life-saving treatment they need. They may be passed over or screened out of eligibility for organ donation based on unfounded assumptions about their quality of life and ability to follow post-operative care instructions.

Disability advocates have known about the problem for a while. In 2008, researchers at Stanford University surveyed 88 transplant centers across the country. It found that 85% of pediatric transplant centers consider intellectual or developmental disability as one of their eligibility criteria. In heart transplant programs, 71% said they “always” or “usually” considered intellectual and developmental disability diagnosis before adding a patient’s name to the organ transplant list.

More recently, in 2019, the National Council on Disability issued submitted a five-report series called Organ Transplants and Discrimination Against People With Disabilities to then-President Donald Trump. That report “focuse[d] on how the historical and continued devaluation of the lives of people with disabilities by the medical community, legislators, researchers, and even health economists, perpetuates unequal access to medical care, including life-saving care.”

States Fight Back Against Organ Transplant Disability Discrimination

The Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act make it illegal to discriminate against someone because they have a disability. However, many medical professionals and organ transplant centers continue to do it, apparently unaware that the anti-discrimination laws apply to the organ transplant process.

The National Down Syndrome Society has been working to increase visibility of the issue, and improve state-level protections against organ transplant disability discrimination. They have advocated for additional anti-discrimination laws in 15 states, including California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Delaware, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Louisiana, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, and Virginia.

One NDSS advocate, Charlotte Woodward is an organ transplant recipient herself. Woodward, who has Down syndrome, received a heart transplant to correct an atrioventricular heart defect that left a hole in the wall between her heart’s chambers, and flaws in its valves. After multiple surgeries, Woodward was told she would need a transplant. Unlike many in her condition, Woodward’s doctors advocated for her to be put on the transplant list. She had the heart transplant operation 11 days later.

Now Woodward is an advocate against organ transplant discrimination. Woodward told Forbes:

“Many people with Down syndrome in society aren’t considered to be candidates for an organ transplant, and that begs the question, whose lives are valuable?”

She told her story in front of the Virginia health committee in 2020, which played a key role in the state passing organ transplant legislation later that year.

Congress Takes Up Organ Transplant Legislation

Now Ms. Woodward is being asked to take her advocacy to the national level. Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington State’s 3rd district, is working to propose anti-discrimination organ transplant legislation to the U.S. House of Representatives. She and her co-sponsor, Katie Porter, a Democrat from California’s 45th district are working to increase protections for Americans with disabilities’ access to medical care.

“Only a handful of states have laws barring [organ transplant] discrimination; it’s time to give all Americans with disabilities access to the gift of organ donation,” Rep. Herrera Beutler said.

The federal bill is called the Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act. If it becomes law, it would prevent doctors, hospitals, transplant centers, and other healthcare providers from denying someone an organ transplant based on a disability diagnosis. Instead, medical providers would be required to consider the likelihood of transplant success and to provide aftercare support to those with disabilities. The bill also includes streamlined procedures for challenging organ transplant disability discrimination, so that the legal process does not interfere with a person receiving appropriate medical care.

The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act was introduced on December 16, 2020. It will likely be reintroduced in the new legislative session. It will then be referred to the House Energy and Commerce committee for consideration, and possibly additional testimony from Charlotte Woodward herself.

Americans with disabilities don’t have to wait for the new legislation to become law. If you are facing disability discrimination by a doctor, transplant center, or your employer, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act already give you options. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our New York-based discrimination attorneys represent individuals who face systems designed to work against them. We can help you file an ADA complaint and get you access to the medical care you deserve. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

Sign the Petition to End Asian Hate Crimes and Discrimination (NYC)

/

STOP AAPI Hate has created a petition, written with Eisenberg & Baum, LLP Partner Juyoun Han, Esq. and Intern Patrick K. Lin, to end Asian hate crimes and discrimination in New York City.

SIGN THE PETITION: End Asian Hate Crimes and Discrimination (NYC)

“I didn’t like the way he looked at me. . . . If he dies, he dies.” A 36-year-old man was stabbed with an 8-inch knife while walking in New York City’s Chinatown. The victim remains in critical condition.

The Facts:

  • Between March and December last year, the organization Stop Asian American and Pacific Islander Hate recorded nearly 3,000 reports of anti-Asian hate incidents nationwide.
  • The NYPD also reported a 1,900% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes last year.

Our Demands:

  • We Demand Manhattan DA to pursue investigations with the possibility of bringing additional charges of a hate crime: When the motive involves targeting someone because of race, it becomes a hate crime. As such, we call for an immediate and committed investigation.
  • We Demand Local and State Government to Commit Funds to Asian Community Groups to Combat Anti-Asian Racism: In California, the state government committed $1.4 million to help Asian Americans report hate incidents and track attacks against Asians. The Asian Community, grass roots movements, and community level Institutions should be financially backed to detect, report, and support the needs of individual members.
  • The Public Should Not be Misled by Rhetoric Pitting Minority Communities Against One Another: The battle we must fight is not between the victim’s community versus the accused suspect’s community. It is a battle between everyone versus racism. Throughout American history, the foundations of civil rights were solidified and advanced by movements led by many Black community members.
  • Stop the Gaslighting: The model minority myth is a form of unwelcome gaslighting rooted in stereotypes. It perpetuates a characterization of Asian Americans as a polite, law-abiding group who should be content with pull-yourselves-up-by-your-bootstraps immigrant striving. Thus, this mentality deters Asians from speaking up, engaging in public discourse, and fighting for Asian rights. The model minority myth is a falsehood conjured for the purpose of oppressing and subduing Asian voices.
  • We demand that the Governor, Mayor, Human Rights Commission/Task Force, Public Advocate, Department of Education, EEOC, Attorney General regularly meet with local community organizations, PTAs, School boards, Workers’ Unions, and advocacy groups.
  • We demand that there be public forums, education and training across sectors to detect instances of harassment, cyberbullying, and bias experienced by Asian Community members, and find ways to support those impacted through economic, legal, and political means.

Further Reading:

  • Stop Asian American and Pacific Islander Hate (STOPAAPIHATE.org)
  • Rise Justice Labs (RiseNow.us)
  • Minkwon Center for Community Action (Minkwon.Org)
  • Hate Crimes Against Asian-Americans: Community Targeted in Nearly 3,800 Hate Incidents in Past Year (New York Times)
  • Study Shows Rise of Hate Crimes, Violence Against Asian Americans During the Pandemic (NBC New York)
  • California allocates $1.4 million to track and stop attacks against Asian Americans (CNN)

David Haas Hymns Banned by Catholic Churches After Sexual Harassment Accusations

/

Sometimes it doesn’t take a lawsuit to get real relief as a victim of sexual harassment and sex abuse. The multiple victims of Catholic composer David Haas demonstrated that sometimes a victim’s advocate can make a big impact even when legal issues may stand between the victims and the courthouse. As a result of their advocacy, Haas’s hymns have been banned from Catholic churches in 10 archdioceses nationwide.

Almost 40 Women Raised their Voices Against Catholic Composer David Haas

In music, there is a big difference between a single voice singing a solo and a chorus of harmonious voices. While one singer can make an impact, a choir in full voice can shake the building. The same is true when advocating for social changes. One woman or man speaking about one incident may get some attention, but when dozens of women come together to tell the same story, people listen. The survivor advocacy group Into Account has assembled a chorus of 38 women, all of whom allege that they were sexually harassed or abused by religious composer David Haas. According to Susan Bruhl, one of the women represented by Into Account:

“David has this uncanny knack of finding girls who don’t have fathers at home, who may have come from an abusive background or were neglected.”

A New York Times article told the stories of six of those women (four anonymously). According to their stories, Haas approached several of these women early in their church music careers, sometimes as teenagers. They accuse Haas of:

  • Buying alcohol for an 18 year old girl and inviting her to his hotel room because “you’re a woman now.”
  • Grooming an employee at his music summer camp and treating her like a servant
  • Sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a parish music director
  • Pushing a woman against a wall
  • Forcibly grabbing, groping, and kissing several women
  • Pressuring an 18 year old workshop attendee into committing sexual acts

One of his victims, now a cantor in a Catholic parish, says she suffered a panic attack after the incident when she had to sing one of Haas’s songs during a church Mass.

Why Court Might Not be an Option for the Haas Victims

While the ladies’ stories are compelling there are a number of reasons they may have trouble raising sexual harassment claims in court. As the New York Times notes, no civil or criminal charges have been filed against Mr. Haas. That may have to do with how long ago the incidents occurred, interactions falling outside the formal employer-employee structure, and problems holding religious leaders accountable for workplace discrimination and harassment.

Compelling Stories, Told Too Late

The earliest formal sexual harassment complaint against has dates back to 1987, when the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis received notice of “unwanted sexual advances toward a young adult woman.” Ms Bruhl’s complaints date back even earlier, to 1984.

In many states, the statute of limitations for complaints like these may only be a few short years. Here in New York, it used to be that child sex assault victims had to file their claims within 5 years of turning 18.  However, more recently, the New York Child Victims Act has allowed young women and men time to mature and heal before heading to court. These complaints can now be filed anytime before the child victim turns 55 years old.

Catholic Composer, Not Employer

Another legal challenge for some of David Haas’s victims comes in defining their relationship. Under federal law, an organization like the Catholic Church only needs to respond to sexual harassment complaints involving employees. But David Haas was not formally employed by the Church. As a composer, his working relationship with parish cantors and music directors was more like an independent vendor. That difference could block federal complaints filed under Title VII. However, the New York State Human Rights Law is broader. Since 2018, the law has protected contractors, vendors, consultants, and anyone providing services in a business, not just its employees.

Catholic Music Performer and the Ministerial Exception

Perhaps the biggest hurdle for those seeking a lawsuit against David Haas comes from his role within the religious organization of the Catholic Church. Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that teachers were “ministers” for the purposes of applying federal employment discrimination protections. It prevented the former teachers from suing their Catholic school employers based on the “ministerial exception” to Title VII and the First Amendment. While David Hass does not appear to be an ordained minister, under the court’s decision, the ministerial exception applies to anyone who has the responsibility of teaching religion and participating in religious activities. That could apply to a writer and performer of Catholic songs like Haas.

Victim Advocacy Prompts Catholic Archdioceses to Ban Popular Hymns

The victims of David Haas’s sexual harassment and assault aren’t letting legal obstacles stop them from holding him accountable. Described as a “rock star in the Catholic liturgical realm,” Haas, has long been able to make up his own rules. For example, after his ex-wife divorced him in 1995, she faced retaliation in the liturgical music world, even though she too had been a victim of his sexual assault as a teenager.

In spite of all this, the victims are still pressuring the Catholic Church for change. They emailed a letter to church leaders, publishers, and liturgists explaining what they faced. As a result, 10 archdioceses from across the country have banned their churches from using David Haas songs. Liturgical publishers OCP and GIA Publications have cut ties with him, and his music has been pulled from a Mennonite hymnal called “Voices Together.” In addition, his local archdiocese now prohibits him from performing at Masses and other events, and it has not renewed his letter of suitability, which would allow him to perform elsewhere within the Church.

These steps show that even when a lawsuit isn’t the right option, victims of sexual harassment and abuse can get their stories heard and sometimes even be compensated for what they have suffered. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, we have sexual harassment and sex abuse attorneys who know how to approach these claims from all sides: legal, regulatory, negotiation, and publication. We can help you consider the strength of your legal case in New York and federal courts, and what other options you may have to make your voice heard. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to an attorney.