9:00 AM to 12:15 PM
Speakers: Michelle Paris, Esq. Visitng Magistrate and Adjunct Professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Sheryl Harris, Consumer and Business Columnist for the Plain Dealer
“Banks to the Future: The Legal Frontier of International Finance”
Advanced Registration Not Required
1:00: Welcome and Introductory Remarks by Mark J. Sundahl, Associate Dean for Administration and Professor of Law, Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
1:15: Crowdfunding, Cryptocurrencies, and International Business Ethics: Follow the “Money” by David Groshoff, senior VP & Chief Legal Officer at Dreamfund. Groshoff earned his J.D., M.B.A., and Ed.M from the Ohio State University, Northern Kentucky University, and Harvard University respectively.
2:05: Banks, Customer Identification, and the Search for the Bad Guys, by Richard Gordon, professor of law at Case Western Reserve University and Director of Financial Integrity Programs at Brown University. Gordon received a B.A. from Yale University and JD from Harvard University. Prior to coming to Cleveland, he practiced international tax law at the now defunct firm of Dewey Ballantine, and taught at Harvard Law School.
3:05: Money in Politics, the Roberts Court, and International Law: A Growing Divide, by Timothy K. Kuhner, associate professor at Georgia State University College of Law. Kuhner’s scholarship has been cited in the Yale Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, Duke Law Journal, NYU Law Review and the American Journal of Comparative Law. He received his J.D. and LL.M., magna cum laude, from Duke University School of Law.
3:55: Economic Sanctions: Opportunities and Compliance Challenges, by Jon P. Yormick, an international business and trade lawyer, practicing from offices in Buffalo and Cleveland. Yormick has represented U.S. and foreign clients before the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Sponsored by the Journal of Law and Health, Center for Health Law & Policy and Health Law Society
Cleveland-Marshall will host "The People versus Joseph's Brothers," a dramatic mock trial and panel discussion, presented by Kol HaLev, Cleveland's Reconstructionist Jewish Community. Distinguished members of Cleveland's legal community will argue and preside over the trial of the biblical story of Joseph, with the audience acting as jury. Following the trial, a panel of prominent local religious leaders and scholars will discuss the moral and ethical implications of the case.
Has parental favoritism paved the way for criminal intent?
Join us for this dramatic, live courtroom battle, and YOU, the audience-as-jury, will decide!
Presiding Judge: The Honorable Dan Aaron Polster, U.S. District Court
Defense Attorney: Jonathan B. Leiken, Senior V.P, Chief Legal Counsel & Secretary, Diebold, Inc.
Prosecuting Attorney: Steven M. Dettlebach, U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Ohio
Expert Witnesses: Andrew Edwards, MSW, M.Div., Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., CSU School of Social Work
Deborah Isaak-Shapiro, LISW, MAJCS, Jewish Family Service Association
Cast your ballot, then engage in discourse with our distinguished panel as they wrestle
with the social and ethical implications of this formative tale, presented as a City Club Forum:
- Rabbi Steve Segar, Kol HaLev, Cleveland’s Reconstructionist Jewish Community
- The Rev. Leah C.K. Lewis, The Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd
- Cathleen A. Lewandowski, Ph.D., LSCSW, Cleveland State University School of Social Work
- Panel Moderator: Jill Miller Zimon, JD, MSSA, Attorney and Freelance Writer, Writes Like She Talks
Tickets for the event are $30-$125 and can be purchased at http://www.kolhalev.net/trial.html.
2 CLE credits are available at the $60, $75 and $125 ticket levels.
Speakers: Danielle Doza, Amy Ryder Wentz
Employers asserting religious rights in the workplace has become increasingly visible, a trend that is likely to continue following the Supreme Court’s 2014 Hobby Lobby decision. There, the Court held for the first time that closely-held for-profit corporations are persons that may exercise religion within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Although the reach of the decision remains unclear, it is certain to raise a host of novel issues. For example, because of its sincerely-held religious beliefs, might an employer choose to exclude coverage for blood transfusions or anti-depressant medications? Might it decline to promote a female employee if it means she would supervise male subordinates? Might it refuse to employ LGBT individuals?
Separately, an increasing number of religious institutions have required their employees to sign detailed “morality clauses,” requiring them to behave in a manner fitting the employer’s strict faith decrees. These institutions have threatened employees who refuse to do so or watched as employees quit in protest.
These and other instances of employers asserting their religious rights inevitably sets up a clash between employers running their workplaces consistent with their religious beliefs on the one hand, and employees seeking protection under anti-discrimination laws on the other. Amy Ryder Wendtz of the law firm of Littler Mendelson and Danielle O. Doza, past Policy Council with the ACLU of Ohio, will discuss these and other issues that pertain to the religious rights of employers, with particular focus on the actual and potential effect of Hobby Lobby on employee rights under anti-discrimination laws. In addition, the panel will discuss how attorneys might advise their clients in light of Hobby Lobby and the varied potential issues it raises.
featured keynote speaker:
Mark Rosenbaum, Chief Counsel of the ACLU of Southern California
Of What Use is the Fourteenth Amendment to Racial Minorities When it Comes to Higher Education (Or Anything Else) After Fisher and Schuette?
The Supreme Court in Fisher and Schuette, building upon Parents Involved and a slew of recent redistricting cases, has sanctioned challenges to policies and programs designed to promote diversity and enlarge access to the political process and higher education that would benefit members of racial minority groups, while at the same time has upheld state constitutional provisions that have eliminated altogether constitutionally permissible programs that utilize race, no matter how narrowly and in what contexts. How has this been accomplished and at what costs to coherent Fourteenth Amendment doctrine? Putting aside earlier cases, are these decisions themselves reconcilable with one another? Short of remedial laws, is race now become simply a dirty word? What are the empirical consequences of these decisions? And has the course of Fourteenth Amendment law in the area of race been made effectively irreversible?
- William J. Glenn, J.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Virginia Tech School of Education
School Segregation in Jefferson County and Seattle: The impact of the Parents Involved ruling and district actions
- David H.K. Nguyen, M.B.A., J.D., LL.M., Candidate for Ph.D., Education Policy. Associate Instructor, Indiana University Bloomington
“Jim Crowing” Plyler v. Doe: The Resegregation of Undocumented Students in American Higher Education through Discriminatory State Tuition and Fee Legislation
- Natalie Gomez-Velez, J.D., Professor, The City University of New York School of Law
Can Universal Pre-K Overcome Extreme Race and Income Segregation to Reach New York City Children in Need? The importance of legal infrastructure and the limits of the law
- Natasha Wilson, J.D., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Post-Doctoral Fellow, New York University, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service; Robert Strassfeld, J.D., Professor and Director, Institute for Global Security Law and Policy, and Associate Director, Frederick K. Cox International Law Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Turnaround in Reverse: Brown, school improvement grants, and the legacy of educational opportunity
Alan Silber, a graduate of Duke University and Columbia Law School, has been a leader in the marijuana legalization movement for many years. He has served on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, chaired that group’s Drug Law Reform Committee, and lectured around the country on issues involving drug law reform. Silber served on the ABA Drug Law reform committee and the board of advisors of the Drug Policy Foundation.
Roger Newman is the author of "Hugo Black: A Biography," a work that won the Scribes Book Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in biography. He also co-authored "Banned Films: Movies, Censors and the First Amendment," and was editor-in-chief of "The Constitution and Its Amendments.” Newman taught for seven years as an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is currently working on a book on the Supreme Court against the backdrop of the conservative movement over the past forty years.
Newman’s writings have appeared in The Washington Post, The Nation and The American Lawyer as well as many other academic and legal publications and newspapers. He has lectured extensively with over 200 appearances and university’s throughout the county, and has appeared on NPR, PBS, C-Span and Entertainment Tonight.
“One Nation Under Surveillance” Synopsis
If the first casualty of war is truth, civil liberties are second. Panic leads the way, with such examples as the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II and McCarthyism purges during the Cold War. The reaction to 9-11 has threatened civil liberties in a potentially much more dangerous way. The government is keeping records of everything we do digitally, even on admittedly rare occasion listening to our phone calls. A National Surveillance State has been created. Even just walking on the street is often recorded. The dangers are obvious. Americans are losing their privacy as the government to an unprecedented extent is monitoring communications and recording in public, seemingly in perpetuity. The ramifications just cannot be understated and simply put, it is the hottest issue in the country.