Category Archives: legal case projects

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Introduction

A recurring theme or question this class brushes up against, often at the end of a class discussion, is the idea of the intended beneficiary versus the actual beneficiary of a law. And similar to many other cases (of law or legality) discussed, the Supreme Court case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear poses the question of who is left disadvantaged, long after a law has been enacted. The case poses other questions as well, of whether laws do bring about social or socioeconomic change, of how fair compensation is determined and how institutional forms of discrimination can be glossed over. You yourself may recognize the name Ledbetter from the first act that President Obama signed in office. We decided to look at the case historically, and start with a brief overview of how some acts concerning gender discrimination came about. In addition to our explanation of the case, we felt it would be helpful to tie in some notes on American feminism, and connect the issues presented with problems workers face today.

The ERA, a most famous un-ratified act.

A few years after the inclusion of the 19th Amendment allowing women the right to vote, women (and men) gathered at the Seneca Falls convention to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the first Women’s Rights Convention. It was here that the activist Alice Paul presented what she called the “Lucretia Mott Amendment,” named after the late 19th century women’s rights activist. Paul, a triple law degree earner, wanted to put into words a strong resolution of the idea of equality. To put in terms familiar from The Common Place of Law, she put legality into law. Paul would go on to travel to Europe, acting as leader of the World Woman’s Party that she created, and work closely with the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations. She would continue to organize, lead coalitions, and protest until her death in 1977.

The story of the ERA is a bit more frustrating. While it was introduced in 1923, it would go on to be presented to Congress every year until 1972. Alice Paul edited the act in 1943 and renamed it the “Alice Paul Amendment.” The sections now read:

  1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
  2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
  3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

But since the premier issue of the era was labor and workplace law, the act was put on the backburner. Instead, the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s brought on a new surge of women organizers demanding equality. And by the early 1970s, mobilization for the act effectively introduced the second wave of feminism in the United States, particularly in the Midwest. As scholar Erin Kemper writes, the ERA “profoundly affected the nature and trajectory of the second-wave feminist movement in Indiana” (Kemper). It created a divide among radical feminists and general reformists, but the movement was a huge step in unifying women’s discontent with the inequality they faced in the workplace and beyond. Feminism became that much more mainstream.

Unfortunately, even as the act was introduced year in and year out, it was never fully ratified. Though 35 states ratified it, another five repealed their ratifications. As U.S. presidential elections turned more conservative in the 1980s, support for the ERA dwindled even further. Despite hunger strikes and civil disobedience, the 1979 deadline of the ratification proposed by Congress came and went without full ratification, and the act was not reintroduced to Congress until 1982. It has been introduced every year since, but the rhetoric of the act is often claimed to be redundant, with other acts argued to have similar motives. But ERA supporters are still out there.

Equal Pay Act

From the early 20th century, women made up 24% of the workforce while making on average 59 cents to every dollar earned by men. With the rise of women in the labor force during World War II, due to labor shortages, it became inevitable to impose laws that would protect women from unequal pay. The first equal pay act was introduced to Congress in 1945: Women’s Equal Pay Act, which failed to pass due to disputes on the specific phrase “comparable work” used in the bill. The disagreement with the phrase stemmed from the implication that equal pay should be given for different positions in the same work environment. Throughout the 1950s, numerous bills for equal pay were brought to Congress, but all of them failed to move forward until 1961, during John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier campaign for the election. Esther Peterson, a women’s advocate who was appointed to Kennedy’s Women’s Bureau in the Department of Labor, submitted a draft bill on behalf of the Kennedy administration. Legal terms, such as “comparable work” were replaced with “equal work”, to signify that “jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions” made it possible to move the bill along. The Equal Pay Act intended to eliminate wage differences resulting from sex discrimination. This Act enforced employers to pay women and men the same wages for performing “equal work” in the same workplace. Equal work is defined here as “jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.” Although this bill was designed to protect discrimination against women even today, there is a significant pay gap in the workforce. Equal Pay Day represents how far into the year a woman work to earn the same amount of money a man earned the year prior. “Celebrated” in April, the day is a disheartening reminder to us all of the fact that many women must work 16 months to earn what men do in 12, for the same work. President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 into law on January 29.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Lilly Ledbetter was born in Jacksonville, Alabama in 1938. She graduated Jackson High School, after which she passed H&R block tax preparation courses and started to work for them as an associate. She later on became an office manager at an accountant firm in Gadsden and in a gynecologists’ office. In 1979, Goodyear hired her in a supervisor position. According to one of her interviews, that job was exiting for her. The job as area manager was mostly occupied with male workers and she was among few female workers to be in that same position. They were nearly being paid the same rate for similar workload. In 1992, Ledbetter received an anonymous mail stating that she was under paid and all her male coworkers get more money than she did. She would get $3,727 per month; meanwhile, male area managers would get $4,286 per month. When she found out, she decided to file a lawsuit against the company. She filed a complaint with the EEOC, her case went to trial, and the jury gave her back approximately $3.8 million in compensatory and retributive damages for the pay discrimination to which she had been subjected. However, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the lower court’s ruling. She lost only by one voice (5 out of 4). According to the Supreme Court, the Title VII only allowed victims to file a claim for pay discrimination within 180 days of the original pay-setting decision. The employee must claim her or his rights within 180 days of the discriminatory action. Thus, Ledbetter lost her case because she worked in a company for 19 years and filed a complaint only after retiring.

Despite her defeat, Ledbetter continued her fight for workplace fairness. She indicated in one of her interviews “I’ll be happy if the last thing they say about me after I die is that I made a difference. She does not want women and minorities to come across these types of discriminations. In January 2009, The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first law passed by President Obama. It reestablishes an anti-discrimination law that existed earlier to the Supreme

Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.. This Act takes over the court decision by making clear that each discriminatory paycheck is a new act of discrimination, which resets the 180-day limit to file a claim. At the same time, the Act states that claimants still can recover back pay for a period of no more than 2 years before they encounter the discrimination.

Lilly Ledbetter has been traveling around the country for the last 10 years. She shares her experience and story with people and encourages women and minorities to claim their civil rights. She wrote a book, Grace and Grit: My Fight for Equal Pay and Fairness at Goodyear and Beyond, in 2012. This book was co-written with Lanier Scott Isom and talks about her life, her work experience with the Goodyear and everything that followed.

Ledbetter case gives hope to thousands of woman who want to be equally paid for the same job. President Obama seems to be integrated in the problem of wage gap very much and has been seriously involved in the prevention of pay discriminations at work after signing the Ledbetter Act. In his State of Union Speech he said” Today women make up about half of our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment”. Obama gave out two executive orders in support to the Equal Pay act. First, everyone now can request and find out information regarding his/her coworker’s pay rate. This will help everyone to find out if there is a discrimination of his or her paycheck. There are so many people who are treated unequally but due to the lack of information, they never find out about it. Secondly, the President signed Presidential Memorandum ordering the Secretary of Labor to create new guidelines requiring federal constructions to submit data containing compensations paid to their employees, including data by race and gender.

Conclusion

Does this mean that society is gradually getting rid of the gender discriminations? Does this mean that soon there will not be any barriers for females to success and move forward in their careers? These questions will never have completely positive answers. It is obvious that there will be many positive pay changes for women. However, this will not end the discrimination or gender inequalities at workplace completely. This is something like racism, which fades away but never disappears completely.  These acts will be followed but the new ways will be created to discriminate women a work. Lilly Ledbetter was not the first or the last female who met pay rate discrimination. The vivid example of upper said is the Wal- Mart v Dukes act, which was actually denied. Betty Dukes was a 54-year-old Wal-Mart worker in California. In 2000, she filed a sex discrimination case against Wal- Mart with few other female workers. Regardless of her six years’ experience of work and progressive performance reviews, she was denied the training she needed to improve for a higher salaried position. The women were paid in low pay rates compared to men in similar positions. They also had to wait longer for the management positions compared to men. In June 2001, the lawsuit began in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The accusers sought to represent 1.6 million women who were currently working or who had previously worked in a Wal-Mart store since December 26, 1998. In June 2004, the federal district judge, Martin Jenkins, ruled in favor of class certification. However, Wal-Mart appealed the decision. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Wal-Mart’s appeal in 2006. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart’s favor, saying the accusers did not have enough in common to constitute a class. Gender fairness will be achieved when people will be able to access and enjoy the same rewards, incomes and occasions regardless of whether they are women or men.

Class Connection

There is a connection between Lilly Lebetter v Goodyear and  “The Common Place of Law” by Patricia Ewick & Susan S. Silbey. The case is a part of the third law type, “against the law”. Injustice has been committed against that individual and action is required for their benefit. Against the law requires resistance. This is what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. She was treated unequally and the law seemed not to be on her side. She was not able to work with the law, because the law excludes her from its legal protection. It is interesting how both cases were first approved by district judges and later on were rejected by the Supreme Court. This looks like a bias in Supreme Court decisions that are related to women.

Bibliography

1. Cose, Ellis. “The Supremes’ Technical Failure.” Newsweek 11 June 2007: 34. Criminal Justice Collection. Web. 19 Oct. 2014

2. Eidmann, Kathryn A. “Ledbetter in Congress: The Limits of a Narrow Legislative Override.” The Yale Law Journal 117.5 (2008): 971-79. JSTOR. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.

3. Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (1198). The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life . Chicago and London : The University of Chicago Press

4. KEMPKER, ERIN M. “Coalition And Control.” Frontiers: A Journal Of Women Studies 34.2 (2013): 52-82. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 1 Nov. 2014

5. Ledbetter, Lilly M., and Lanier Scott Isom. Grace and Grit: My Fight for Equal Pay and Fairness at Goodyear and beyond. New York: Crown Archetype, 2012. Print

6. Lovell, Vicky. “Evaluating Policy Solutions To Sex-Based Pay Discrimination: Women Workers, Lawmakers, And Cultural Change.” University Of Maryland Law Journal Of Race, Religion, Gender & Class 9.1 (2009): 45-61. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 19 Oct. 2014
7. Lyons, Sarah. “Why The Law Should Intervene To Disrupt Pay-Secrecy Norms: Analyzing The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Through The Lens Of Social Norms.” Columbia Journal Of Law & Social Problems 46.3 (2013): 361-392
8. School, C. U. (2007, May 29). LILLY M. LEDBETTER, PETITIONER v. THE GOOD-. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from LILLY M. LEDBETTER, PETITIONER v. THE GOOD-

http://www.afj.org/multimedia/videos/content/unequal-justice-wal-mart-v-dukes

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/history.htm

Louisiana v. Doctor Richard J. Schmidt.

In 1994, Dr. Richard Schmidt was convicted of attempted second degree murder in the state of Louisiana. Schmidt injected his lover, Janice Trahan with a Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive blood sample from a prior patient he had seen earlier that night. It was the first case in United States History to ever use phylogenetic testing to obtain DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA) evidence in order to prosecute the suspect. However, this case led to the incrimination and thus further oppression of those with less life chances.

The background of this case is centered on Doctor Richard J. Schmidt who in 1998 was convicted of attempted second degree murder. Schmidt compromised his integrity as a doctor by using a blood sample which belonged his patient which tested as Human Immunodeficiency Virus positive; maliciously injecting the blood sample into Janice Trahan. Schmidt indicated to Janice, that the injection was a Vitamin B-12 shot, when in reality it was HIV. Eventually Janice fell ill and later tested positive for HIV and Hepatitis C. With the use of phylogenetics, the lab was able to connect Janice’s DNA to Schmidt’s prior patient, whom the HIV positive DNA originated. With this evidence the court was able to prove that Richard J. Schmidt was in fact guilty.

There are a multiplicity of aspects which makes this case State of Louisiana v. Richard Schmidt noteworthy. One significant feature this case discloses is the mere landmark seeing as this is the first case to ever utilize phylogenetics in identifying a positive match between one HIV patient. Phylogenetics uses applied microbiological DNA testing to link one individual’s blood sample to another. Another remarkable indication of Schmidt’s case is the fact by which HIV was prosecuted in court as a weapon of criminal intent. This case thusly opened up inevitable complications between the relationship of an HIV positive community and the law; hence the case led to the criminalization of anyone who may have tested positive for HIV, on the possible grounds of bodily harm and malicious intent of spreading a lethal virus, whether the suspect was truly innocent or not.

Preceding this trial, a case in Florida was made against Dr. David K. Acer. A dentist who was allegedly gave six of his patients a Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Prior to Schmidt’s case, Dr. Acer was the first health care provider to have infected his patients with a virus. Due to the media attention which followed this case, and his patient Kimberly Bergalis, who tested HIV positive from the same strain of Dr. Acer which thusly led to her demise in 1991, lawmakers and health officials were coerced to restrict infected health-care workers. According to a New York Times article, “A possible motive was suggested by Edward Parsons, a nurse who was a friend of Dr. Acer. He told The Palm Beach Post [in 1992] that Dr. Acer had […mentioned in] 1988 that mainstream America was ignoring AIDS because it affected mostly homosexuals like himself, hemophiliacs and drug addicts. ‘When it starts affecting grandmothers and younger people, then you’ll see something done,’ Mr. Parsons said Dr. Acer told him.”

In “The Common Place of Law,” by Patricia Ewick and Susan S. Silby, each speak about perceptions of the law in relation to everyday life. Given the historical events taking place before the inditement of Schmidt, we can argue Dr. Acer’s intent might have been an act of resistance. According to Ewik and Silby, Acer encompassed an awareness of being “[…] less powerful in a relationship of power.” Also conscious of his opportunity to take advantage of his situation, he thusly intervened in an autonomous fashion. He also fulfilled the third and final requirement of resistance by assessing “[…] that power has produced unfair constraints and opportunities.”(p.183)  Although his actions were somewhat self-interested and may not have utilized a very ethical tactic, he made due with a convenient resource.

Unfortunately, both of these cases has created an idea of Intersectional discrimination. Intersectional discrimination can be simplified as the creation of a stigma for anyone who falls within the lines of those with less life chances. In this case, an individual who might have a positive reading for HIV and/or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). These acts of resistance in conjunction with Schmidt’s case, may have negatively linked minority groups such as gay men, sex workers and even those who use drugs recreationally. This is an unintentional outcome of these individuals. Although People who are HIV positive expressly  have the choice to who they expose this virus to, Schmidt’s case made it illegal to transmit the disease in any way. Intentional or not. This has become a stigma of the disease because of the actions of Acer and Schmidt.

HIV and AIDS are now considered a lethal weapon typically used with the intention to create a hostile environment for those who did not have the opportunity to object to such circumstances. In this case, the virus was used with vengeance. This conversely can bring about wrongful convictions because a no-positive individual may have consensual sex or share a needle with an HIV positive and or those with AIDS with full knowledge of the circumstance. Personal vendettas can be brought against the individual with a positive testing and may be at risk of criminalization, simply for possessing the virus. This shows a hateful future between individuals by categorizing those with HIV or AIDS as being viewed as a societal deviant.

There is not much that one can argue about the verdict of Louisiana v. Schmidt seeing as Schmidt not only pled guilty of malicious intent to cause bodily harm, but the phylogenetic testing which provided further evidence for such an insidious crime. However, an argument Schmidt made subsequent to his verdict in 1998 which was that a fifty-year sentence displayed excessive force to what he percieved as a trivial crime. The court in return believed a fifty year sentence was justified for the crime committed.

To some, fifty years may not seem to be enough for injecting someone with a lethal virus, Trahan can begin to cope with living with HIV. Unfortunately this will affect her for the remainder of her life. This case has set a platform of revolutionary history, which benefits anyone and anything with a DNA sample. This case was the start of many of cases which used  phylogenetic testing to find justice in a complicated and somewhat faulty system. The people as well as the state now have this power to request this forensic testing to be utilized to protect innocent people.

Christina/Melanie/Anisa.

Works Cited

    • Ewick, Patricia, and Susan S. Silbey. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1998. Print.


    • Michael, Metzker. “Molecular Evidence of HIV-1 Transmission in a Criminal Case.” Molecular Evidence of HIV-1 Transmission in a Criminal Case. Cross Mark, 04 Sept. 2002.
    • “Posters.” Clinical Microbiology and Infection. WileyPlus, n.d. Web.


    • Quincy. “New Understanding of Law and Pros.” JSTOR. JSTOR, 31 Oct. 2004. Web.


    Spade, Dean. Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law. Brooklyn, NY: South End, 2011. Print.

  • Ratzan, Scott C. “Chapter 7.” AIDS: Effective Health Communication for the 90s. Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis, 1993. 142-45. Print.

United States V. Windsor (2013)

The history of same sex marriage has been a long and withstanding debate in the United States. The debate has extended passed the idea of same sex marriage as it affects the privileges same sex spouses receive as opposed to hetrosexual spouses. This is seen in the Supreme Court case titled United States v. Windsor, in which Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was declared unconstitutional. This case is influential and significant because it redefined the definition of spouse in the law and it declared that the term spouse cannot refer solely to heterosexual couples. The case examined the constitutionality of DOMA and how it contradicts the equal protection stature under the law.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were a same sex couple who were legally married in 2007 in Ontario, Canada. In 2009, Spyer passed away and left her estate to Windsor, but Windsor was unable to obtain a exemption which allowed for tax deduction for a surviving spouse in property ownership. The IRS declared that this provision did not apply to homosexual couples and Windsor ended up paying over $300,000 in taxes (United States v. Windsor 3). In response to this Windsor filed a lawsuit against the government for a refund in the taxes that she paid and the injustices in the DOMA law. DOMA or the Defense of Marriage Act, was passed in 1996 under the Clinton administration and it recognized marriage as a legal union between a man and a women, so it also outlined for provisions such as social security benefits for surviving spouses, immigration and citizenship, and the filing of joint tax returns. However, this act was exclusionary to same sex couples so they were stripped of these benefits, as seen in the case of Edith Windsor, when her legal spouse passed away. The issue raised a lot of questions such as the status of same sex couples in the United States and the form of discrimination that they faced under the law.

The verdict in a 5-4 decision declared that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that it violates the Fifth Amendment. The opinion of the court, that was written dominantly by Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote “By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognitionent in the Bill of Rights” (United States v. Windsor 17). Kennedy was against section 3 of DOMA as it created discrimination for same sex couples and it did not protect same sex couples under the law, which is opposing the Fifth Amendment which allows for equal protection under the law. DOMA proved to be burdensome to many individuals as it left them lacking of basic rights and benefits that were granted to marriages between a man and a women. DOMA caused discrimination towards a whole group of people and it treats them as inferior to heterosexual citizens. According to the majority opinion, Section 3 was a blatant violation of basic rights granted through the Fifth Amendment and it spread scrutiny and disdain amongst same sex couples.

However this was still opposition to the majority opinion, though it was not sufficient enough to sway the vote in the opposite direction. Justice Scalia who was one of the main Justices against the majority opinion stated, “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition” (United States v. Windsor 24). The argument was that invalidating the DOMA law would influence the decision on same sex marriage in various states and that it calls anyone who is opposed to same sex marriage, an enemy of the human race.  He claimed also that the federal government didn’t necessarily have the right to interfere with certain state restrictions and regulations. However, the dissent clearly did not rule out the majority vote, and Section 3 was declared unconstitutional.

I believe that this case is one of many that showcases the government’s power and how law is used as a means of controlling populations. Relating this back to Dean Spade’s Normal Life, I think that this case and the DOMA law are examples of disciplinary power. Spade stated that norms are enforced through laws and policy making strategies which in turn influence thinking and socialization of an individual (Spade 106). We see this in the divide in same sex marriage. The law definitely has an impact as it decides which states legalize same sex marriage, and this does affect how people normalize others and how some individuals are isolated. Section 3 of DOMA, defined spouse as a legal union between a man and a women, and anyone outside of that definition was treated like an outsider. This was seen in the case of Edith Windsor and most likely many other cases that weren’t brought to the supreme level. When laws such as DOMA sets such solid constrictions, other people who don’t necessarily meet that criteria are disadvantaged in terms of the benefits they receive. By declaring Section 3 unconstitutional, the Supreme Court in a way, began the construction of new norms. Now that same sex couples are protected equally under the law, they can be seen as normal citizens and more accepted by society. Now that laws are supporting their rights and more states are legalizing same sex marriage, homosexual individuals are treated better and receiving the rights that they deserve.

*****************************************************************************************************************************

The Supreme Court found that section three of the defense of marriage act because it went against Fifth Amendment’s promise of equal protection for all of American Citizens. Since this section on the act has become unconstitutional many changes occurred with the federal tax law.
Same sex marriage couples as of December 2013 must file their federal taxes as a married couple. When filing taxes, they now have the same benefits (or penalties) as opposite sex married couples have. Same sex married couple are also allowed to gift money, equity and or their estate without any tax penalties. In tax law prior to this the Windsor vs The United States not all same sex marriages were seen as “legitimate”, and therefore these gifts to their spouses where considered taxable income and subject to hefty taxes. So if a same sex couple wanted to put some of their capital under your spouse’s name, under the law the receiving spouse would be considered as receiving income and therefore a taxable event. Opposite sex marriages, when they gift apart of their capital it is just considered a gift.
Prior to the Windsor vs The United States any coverage that was under an employer-provided plan, like accident insurance or health insurance was taxable to the employee. You could only add your same sex spouse on an after-tax plan making it a bit more expensive for you. Now not only can you add you same sex spouse to you pre-taxed health/ accident plans, but same sex married couples can now file amend tax returns and claim refunds on any money they have sent towards any type of employer coverage, where they were denied the benefits that opposite sex couples have.
Employer benefit plans, like IRAs, 401(k)s or annuities were limited for same sex married couples. Before the Windsor vs The United States same sex married couples were not allowed to claim any benefits with the right of survivorship. So if your same sex spouse were to pass away, you were not entitled to any of their capital. Anything left to the living spouse would be considered a gift and therefore it was taxable income. You were also not allowed sign up for any qualified joint retirement account or any joint account with the right of survivorship. Hardships withdrawals are early withdrawals on your retirement plans that you can take due to a misfortune in your life (disease, eviction, etc.). Opposite sex married couples had the right to take hardships withdrawals if their spouses were the ones going through the difficult time. With same sex married couples, even if your spouse was diagnosed with a terminal illness there were tax penalties for withdrawing the money out of your retirement account. Now, as of September 2013, same sex married couples have the same rights to inherit their deceased spousal’s capital and well as sign up of any joint account and file and make a hardship withdrawal based on their spouses status.
Same sex marriages are slowly becoming recognized as “legitimate” marriages. They are slowly starting to get the same benefits as opposite sexed couples, at least when it come to their finances. The problem is not all states are recognizing their marriage as real. So when they file federal taxes they will receive fair same benefits and equal protection, but what about individual state taxes. Although our country is evolving there are still a lot of changes needed to be made so that everyone has equal rights, Windsor vs The United States is a great start to help get them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7b6W6OLGJ0  A brief video detailing the case

Works Cited

United States V. Windsor. Supreme. 26 June 2013. Print.

Spade, Dean. Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law. Brooklyn, NY: South End, 2011. Print.

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/windsor-v-united-states-thea-edie-doma~Hibba Mahmud and Diana Sanchez

Brown vs. Board of Education (1954)

Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) was a case about public segregation that brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. Brown vs. Board of Education challenged the notion of segregation in public education. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed “All men are created equal,” however, the institution of slavery showed otherwise. The slaves were not granted rights or privileges of the Whites and were not considered citizens. Later in the years, Amendments were added to change this and to improve the legal aspects of newly freed slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 ended slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 grants everyone the “due process of law” and the “equal protection of the law.” The Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 gave all citizens the right to vote regardless of race.

Despite these Amendments created to help the freed slaves, African Americans were not treated on equal terms with Whites. State legislatures enacted Jim Crow Laws that led to the segregation of the races, prohibiting blacks and whites from using the same public facilities, riding the same buses or even attending the same school. Due to the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson, the legality of Jim Crow laws and discrimination were upheld by the Supreme Court.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a case where a black man refused to give up his seat for a white person on the train in New Orleans and was arrested because he was legally required to do so by the Louisiana state Law. Plessy declared the segregation of blacks and whites on trains were in violation to the Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection clause.” The Supreme Court ruled against Plessy under the reason that “The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to endorse social, as distinguished from political, equality…If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane” (Justice Henry Billings Brown, Majority opinion). Due to this ruling, “the separate, but equal” idea was legally enacted and upheld by many states.

Brown v. Board of Education was actually a grouping of five separate cases all concerning the issue of public education segregation. The case first came before the Supreme Court in 1952, arguing that legal segregation in public education should be abolished because it was inherently unequal and in direct violation to the “equal protection clause” from the fourteenth Amendment.  The court was unable to reach a verdict, so the case was reheard again in 1953.

An interesting fact was that Chief Justice Fed Vinson died and was replaced by Gov. Earl Warren during the intervening months. The death and replacement of the chiefs may have played a crucial role in the outcome of the case because Chief Justice Warren was the first to decreed segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. It was never done before in history, thus an important fact to keep in mind.

On May 14, 1954, Chief Justice Warren stated “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal…”

On a legal stand point, all segregated public education was no longer allowed, but the actual implementation of the legal ruling didn’t take effect immediately. The process of desegregation would take a long time, possibly many years before the segregated system was to be fully desegregated. The Supreme Court decided to proceed upon the implementation of the verdict with “all deliberate speed.”

Brown v. Board of Education was a crucial and important case because the decision was the official legal end of racial segregation in public schools. The case was responsible for starting the desegregation process and the beginning to an end of racial segregation in “all facets of public life.”

The Long lasting legacy of the decision in Brown V Board, which brought a legal end to school segregation between whites and people of color is interesting to decipher today, 60 years after the case ruling as segregation in schools persist today. The segregation in public schools witnessed today across the country can be explained by various factors such as distribution of wealth public housing, immigration trends and certain policies that have made it easier for school districts and courts to dismantle desegregation plans. The legal ramifications brought by the decisions in this case were a victory for civil rights in the U.S., however the more complex social issues that affect race have not been cured and easily contribute to the segregation in public schools today.

Students living in urban settings are among those most likely to live in a desegregated community and attend a more segregated school as economic disparities are larger in these regions. For example, In the early 1990s, the average Latino and black student attended a school where roughly a third of students were low income, but now attend schools where low income students account for nearly two-thirds of their classmates. This finding reflects the trend in low-income areas becoming increasingly homogenous, and comprised of mostly Black and Latino People. This segregation based on race and class (Orfield, and Siegel-Hawley, 2012). With these disparities in place, the majority of schools in urban areas that reside in low-income communities with high concentrations of people of color with few whites also have the conditions necessary for a failing school system. With intense cultural and socio-economic differences between students, teachers and administrators, segregated schools are often subject to conflict between students and administrators along with very limited capital available to provide better schooling materials as seen in schools with predominantly white students. This situation perpetuates a trend of people of color being locked in a system that inherently prohibits them from equal quality education and integration.

Racialized policies have had a profound affect on this distribution of wealth and ultimate segregation in public school districts that hinder the accomplishments of Brown V Board. For example,In Yonkers New York, a city that boarders the Bronx in Westchester County, City council’s refusal of Section 8 vouchers to use in other areas of Yonkers aside from a designated square mile area, intensified the ghettoization of the area. By 1980, Yonkers schools were largely segregated by race, with minority schools distinctly inferior to their all white counterparts (Unites States v. Yonkers Board of Education, 1985). Integration slowed down in school districts across the nation as years passed after Brown v Board in areas such as Yonkers due to “white flight” a massive exodus of whites in urban areas to suburban areas, creating more segregate communities with schools reflecting this trend.

The effects of Brown v Board have been undoubtedly positive for students across the United States however the true potential of the decision in this case can only be realized if further Efforts made to reintegrate schools. These efforts slowed down considerably in the 1980’s and 1990’s, as time passed after brown v Board and communities seemed to become segregated “by accident” or viewed as segregated strictly based on economic reasons. However now, and in the not-so-distant future the legacy of Brown v Board ca be realized by supporting initiatives that will support reintegration along with equitable education for people of color and Whites such as Developing equitable school funding systems, creating greater accountability among school administrators and community leaders for student success, and reinforcing laws that are already in effect that promote racial and socioeconomic integration in school districts.

-Amy Cheung, Andres, & Khadil

Works Cited

Excessive Force, Reasonableness, and Graham v. Connor

By: Jeffery Asiedu, Mariana Mihova, and Genevieve Mcnamara

Introduction

“Excessive force” and “reasonableness” are two terms that are common in court cases regarding police power.  “Excessive force” is defined as “the use of force greater than that which a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.”  “Reasonableness” is a standard that compares the person in question to a hypothetical one who “exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others’ interests.”  Although loosely defined, these terms hold great power in the court of law and are often subject to interpretation.  This proved to be the case in lower court rulings of Dethorne Graham’s case against the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, regarding his brutal treatment at the hands of five police officers.  However, in Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court ruled that his case, and others like it, must be reviewed under the objective Fourth Amendment standard. In our paper, we present not only the history and facts of the case, but our understanding of the role of the law, police power, and police profiling, as well as the long-ranging implications of the Supreme Court decision.

History of the Issue

The issue of excessive force used by the law is quite common, however the Supreme Court has only undertaken very few of these cases. Graham v. Connor is one of the landmark cases that established a precedent to deciding what kind of analysis should be used by the courts in deciding what is considered excessive force in the conduct of police officers during stops and searches. In a preceding case of Lester v. the City of Chicago it was decided that the criteria to be used in the seizure of a free citizen should be centered on the “reasonableness” standard rather than a “substantive due process”[1]. Graham v. Connor invoked the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment is often considered objectively in the court of law, as far as taking into account whether the police conduct was justified. This standard for “reasonableness” takes into account that “police are often forced to make split second judgements – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation”[2]. This creates an incredible leeway as far as police misconduct is concerned, because the law tends to side with the police, whom are allowed to execute stops following reasonable suspicion based on their subjective observations. Brown remarks that the courts tend to side with the police officers due to the “danger and uncertainty inherent in every arrest situation.. deciding whether certain police conduct is reasonable involves making judgments about dangerous situations that judges know little about (1991).” This  places an incredible amount of confidence in the “split second” judgement of the police officer, and is a quite unreliable way to decide whether the actions of the officer are justified.

The first Supreme Court case ruling that still guides the interpretation of the use of deadly force by law enforcement is the case of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) in which the courts decided that police officers could not shoot at a suspect attempting to flee in order to prevent their escape. The standard of excessive force originated with the 1973 Second Circuit decision of Johnson v. Glick. This was a case in which a pretrial detainee had claimed assault from a prison guard under section 1983. In this case, the court did not apply the Fourth Amendment and instead clarified that constitutional protection from excessive force “quite apart from any ‘specific’ of the Bill of Rights, application of undue force by law enforcement officers deprives a suspect of liberty without the due process of law”[3]. The test for excessive force that came about from the court’s decision characterizes that the use of force must be measured by the severity of the crime, any possible danger to the officer, the risk of flight, and whether or not the force was applied with malicious intent[4].

  1. 1830     F.2d 706 (7th Circuit 1987) Lester v. City of Chicago
  2. Rhenquist,     Chief Justice. (n.d.). Certiorari to the United States Court of     Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Retrieved     November 1, 2014, from     http://law.uark.edu/documents/Bailey-CrimPro-Graham-v.-Connor.pdf
  3. 3481     F.2d at 1032.
  4. 4481     F.2d 1028 ( 2nd Cir. 1973) Johnson v. Glick.

Case Background

On November 12, 1984, Dethorne Graham was working in an auto shop in Charlotte, North Carolina.   Graham had diabetes, and began to feel symptoms of an insulin reaction. Graham asked his friend, William Berry, to drive him to a convenience store nearby so that he could purchase juice to stabilize his insulin. Once inside the store, Graham noticed a long line at the check out counter. He ran from the store into Berry’s car, and asked Berry to drive him to a nearby friend’s house.[1] This behavior attracted the attention of a nearby police officer.

Charlotte Police Officer M.S. Connor, who had been parked in his patrol car outside the store, noticed Graham running from the store and became suspicious. Connor followed Berry’s car, and stopped him about a half a mile away. Berry informed the officer that Graham was having a “sugar reaction,” but Connor responded that he had to find out what had happened at the convenience store. Connor radioed for police backup. In the meantime, Graham’s condition was quickly deteriorating. He exited the car and circled it twice before sitting on the curb and passing out. When he woke up, he was handcuffed and lying on the ground.[2] His behavior had been misunderstood by the responding police officers.

The four officers who arrived as backup assumed that Graham was drunk, with some making comments about his presumed intoxication and others remarking that they knew diabetics who did not act as he was. They did not allow Graham to access his diabetic identification card, which was in his wallet. When a friend brought Graham juice, officers did not allow Graham to drink it. The officers also carried him to Berry’s car, shoving Graham’s face against the hood in the process. As a result of this encounter, Graham experienced a broken foot, lacerations on his forehead and wrists, and an injured shoulder. He also stated that he developed a ringing in his right ear.[3] Graham took his case to court.

Graham sued the five involved officers, as well as the City of Charlotte in Graham v. City of Charlotte. He alleged that his constitutional right to be free from excessive force had been violated. The district court applied the four-part “substantive due process” test developed after the Johnson v. Glick decision: “[1] the need for the application of force, [2] the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, [3] the extent of injury inflicted, and [4] whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” The court found that under this test, the officers had acted to “maintain or restore order,” and the Fourth Circuit panel affirmed this decision.[4] However, the United States Supreme Court decision differed from that of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court Justices unanimously decided to overturn the lower court rulings in Graham v. Connor. In his statement of the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Reinquist emphasized that the case must be decided under the Fourth Amendment, not under any other statute, because it concerns unreasonable search and seizure. Reinquist stated, “all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force – deadly or not – in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a ‘substantive due process’ approach.” Reinquist also insisted that the case must be reviewed objectively, without regard for the officer’s perceived intent: “Because petitioner’s excessive force claim is one arising under the Fourth Amendment, the Court of Appeals erred in analyzing it under the four-part Johnson v. Glick test. That test, which requires consideration of whether individual officers acted in ‘good faith’ or ‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm,’ is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis…The Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of ‘objective reasonableness’ under the circumstances, and subjective concepts like ‘malice’ and ‘sadism’ have no proper place in that inquiry.” [5] The Court instructed the Fourth Circuit to review the case according to the Fourth Amendment, and not according to substantive due process, which they had originally and incorrectly used.

[1] Brown, 1257.

[2] Brown, 1257-1258.

[3] Brown, 1258.

[4] Brown, 1259.

[5] Reinquist, Graham v. Connor: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals, 2-3.

Case Significance

The case proposes great insight to the injustices of the system. The Supreme Court, in their decision in Graham v Connor, stated: “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Meaning that the severity of the crime can cost an officer to make a decision that the end result could or could not be calculated properly. The final judgment is based on an assumption that when not carefully rationalized, Graham v. Connor delivers the broad framework for measuring how the use of force is legal under the Fourth Amendment. A balancing test is implemented when Courts must pay attention to the facts and circumstances of the case incorporating the severity of the crime committed. To determine whether the suspect is of any threat to the safety of the people or the officer. The test also should determine whether the individual is actively resisting arrest or attempting to avoid arrest.  The officer has to make the judgment and not anyone not understanding the situation or event should make the judgment.

In similar cases such as Plumhoff v. Rickard, the court reaffirms their decision in Graham v. Connor. After an officer shooting the car of Richard’s, for speeding, the court had to decide whether the officers actions are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness. The justices also decided that the officers did not fire more shots than needed to end the public safety risk. Furthermore the court noted “ if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.” The real problem here is not shooting the suspect till the threat has ended but rather endangering the same public you are trying to protect. The actions of the officer poses a real threat on the public and can cause more damage than needed.

In comparison to the Ferguson case, you wonder what the right level of force to warrant an arrest is? You would think that an unarmed man usually does not pose as a threat to society. But since the actions of the officer are based on perspectives, what the officer perceives is how they act. The law must be changed because too many people especially minorities are a victim of this law. The chance to prove their innocence is out the door because the action of the officers is based on perspectives. In situations like this suspects are treated as guilty, without given the opportunity to be proven innocent. Officers are not held accountable and it could be said that their profiling is abusing the system because the law is behind them and its quite unfortunate that officers can shoot anyone they see as a threat even if its not the case.

Class Connections

Graham v. Connor relates to our class readings regarding issues of normality and intersectionality. In the Human Rights Watch article, “Sex Workers at Risk: Condoms as Evidence of Prostitution in Four U.S. Cities,” we learned the vague language that allows for the arrest of many on suspicion of sex worker. Behavior that was considered consistent with sex work included loitering, frequenting an area known for sex work, and gesturing or beckoning towards a person or car. This vague language allows for police profiling of people based on their dress, associates, and perceived “abnormal” behavior. In this case, Dethorne Graham was profiled on account of his being diabetic. The symptoms of his medical condition caused him to act in a manner that could be considered “abnormal,” and possibly criminal, leading to his subsequent, unwarranted arrest.

In Kimberle Crenshaw’s paper, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics,” we learned the unique experience that occurs under the intersection of two or more marginalized classes. Crenshaw addresses the position of black women, however, in our case, Dethorne Graham is both black and has a medical condition. His unwarranted arrest stemmed most directly from his behavior that resulted from an insulin reaction, however, it may have been compounded by the fact that black men are often profiled and marginalized. Both his race and the symptoms of his medical condition created a unique situation that contributed to his being profiled. While these factors can be addressed individually—and were in this case, as his medical condition was discussed but his race not mentioned, they should be addressed both individually and together, in order to best understand the complex effects of profiling and marginalization.

Our Theories

The decision made in Dethorne Graham’s original case seems unjust, considering that force was applied completely disregarding his medical condition which was voiced by both Graham and Berry when the police questioned Graham’s “suspicious” activity. Graham and Berry voiced that Graham was carrying a medical card indicating that he is a diabetic confirming their story that Graham’s behavior was exhibiting diabetic symptoms. While Connor, the officer who had made the stop returned to the store to question if any crime had taken place, Graham was brutalized by the other police officers called to the scene who refused to acknowledge or check on his medical condition and refused to let Graham drink the orange juice that would have stabilized his blood sugar. This negligence to acknowledge medical need could have put Graham at risk of a diabetic seizure and possibly threatened his life.  An argument can be made under Section 1983, a statute that was drafted in response to the abuses suffered by African Americans in the Post – Civil War Era, as far as denial of medical attention. This constitutional claim can be called for anything ranging from “deliberate indifference” to “ a serious medical need” for a detainee in custody (Loevy, 2004).  The officers used nothing but their own ideas of what constitutes “normal” behavior to assume that Graham was intoxicated, and used that assumption to justify assaulting him.

In Graham v. Connor there are many historically important factors that play into the decisions made by the court. It is crucially important to acknowledge that Dethorne Graham was a black man, living in North Carolina in the late 1980s. The 1980’s was also a time period heavily plagued by crack related drug crimes, which drives the legitimization of the use of force due to the suspicion of Officer Connor, based on his observations it is very possible that he profiled Mr. Graham as someone who fits a racial profile and must further be investigated. This criminalization of the black man especially in the context of the War on Drugs, has had incredible effects on the unparalleled brutalization and incarceration of African Americans.  It has shaped who the American public perceives to be “criminal.”

There is no civil rights safeguard to protect individuals from the police power to target persons according to their own sets of prejudices. This problem persists to current day profiling of people of color with policies such as Stop and Frisk, which have been declared unconstitutional but are still taking place.

Conclusion

The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor reaffirms our Fourth Amendment rights.  According to Darrell Ross, “the court emphasized the overriding function of the Fourth Amendment is to protect an individual’s personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the ‘State’.”[1]  However, although Graham v. Connor helped to clarify the objective reasonableness standard to be used in cases of search and seizure, this does not mean that this standard has been evenly applied.  The reasonableness standard is often left open to interpretation by courts, and even by the officers themselves.[2]  This has led to situations such as the recent shooting of unarmed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, which police officer Darren Wilson justified in terms of “reasonable” action in order to protect himself and others.[3]  Although the Graham v. Connor decision helps to reaffirm our Fourth Amendment rights, it does not address issues of police profiling and increased marginalization as a result of one’s belonging to one or more minority groups.  Problems persist, not only with these issues, but with the uneven application of the Fourth Amendment and the objective reasonableness standard.

[1] Ross, 300.

[2] Ross, 302.

[3] Leonnig, 2.

Bibliography

Brown, Jill I. “Defining “Reasonable” Police Conduct: Graham v. Connor and Excessive Force During Arrest,” UCLA Law Review 38 no. 5 (1991). The Regents of the University of California. Lexis Nexis Academic. 1257-1286.

“Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,” Graham v. Connor. University of Arkansas School of Law. http://law.uark.edu/documents/Bailey-CrimPro-Graham-v.-Connor.pdf

Leonnig, Carol D. “Current Law Gives Police Wide Latitude to use Deadly Force (Posted 2014-08-28 16:25:14).” The Washington Post, Aug 28, 2014. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1557934610?accountid=27495.

Loevy, J. (n.d.). Ection 1983 Litigation In A Nutshell: Make A Case Out of It! The Journal of the DuPage County Bar Association, 17. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.dcbabrief.org/vol171004art2.html

Lopes, Zachary. “Supreme Court Reaffirms Graham v. Connor – Arkansas Officers’ Use Of Deadly Force Cleared,” Rains Lucia Stern, PC. June 4 2014. http://www.rlslawyers.com/supreme-court-reaffirms-graham-v-conner-arkansas-officers-use-of-deadly-force-cleared/

Miller, Tim. “Part 1: Graham v. Connor.” FLETC Training Center Materials. https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIGrahamvConnor.pdf

“Oral Argument,” Graham v. Connor. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2011. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_6571

Ross, Darrell L. “An Assessment of Graham v. Connor Ten Years Later,” Policing 25 no. 2 (2002). Proquest Social Sciences Premium Collection. 294-319. http://search.proquest.com/docview/211220201?accountid=27495

Sullivan, Eileen. “Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation.” The Big Story. Associated Press. August 21 2014. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/supreme-court-case-shape-ferguson-investigation

Sussman, Aaron. “Shocking the Conscience: What Police Tasers and Weapon Technology Reveal About Excessive Force Law,” UCLA Law Review 59 no. 5 (2012). The Regents of the University of California. Lexis Nexis Academic. 1342-1415.

USLegal, Inc. “Excessive Force Law & Legal Definition,” USLegal.com, 2014. http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/excessive-force/

USLegal, Inc. “Reasonable Man Theory Law & Legal Definition,” USLegal.com, 2014. http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reasonable-man-theory/