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.
Kenneth W. Simons is Professor of Law and the Honorable Frank R. Kenison Distinguished Scholar in Law at Boston University School of Law, where he has taught Criminal Law, Torts, Constitutional Law, and seminars on the Law and Ethics of War, the Philosophy of Punishment, and the Idea of Equality. He is currently co-Reporter of the Restatement Third of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons. He is a leading scholar on the topic of assumption of risk in tort law, and has published an influential series of articles on the nature and role of mental states in criminal law, tort, and constitutional law. He also has written widely on bias crimes, contributory negligence, corrective justice, the logic of egalitarian norms, mistake and impossibility in criminal law, negligence as a moral and legal concept, and strict liability.
Prof. Simons has been a visiting professor at Michigan Law School and a clerk for Judge James L. Oakes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In reference to the LexisNexis Academic (LNA) database, attendees will be able to:
- describe LNA law-related content
- describe how to construct a Boolean or Connector search
- describe how to construct a segment search
- explain how to retrieve a case by citation
- explain how to search for cases, statutory code sections, regulations, and law review articles
- explain how to Shepardize a case (ie, find materials that cite a case)
Hands-on training, accompanied by lecture and PowerPoint presentation.
Detailed outline and PowerPoint slides to be provided to attendees.
Laura E. Ray, MA, MLS, is the Instructional Services Librarian at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University. She coordinates Law Library instructional programs, advises on collection issues for medical and health care materials, as well as provides classroom research instruction, reference service, and assistance with faculty instructional support. Laura has presented and moderated numerous workshops and lectures at national and regional library conferences since 1982, addressing a myriad of topics on legal research, legislative advocacy, educational design and learning styles, and the audiovisual enhancement of learning.
Stephen I. Vladeck is a Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, national security law, and international criminal law. A nationally recognized expert on the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, he was part of the legal team that successfully challenged the Bush Administration's use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), and has co-authored party and amicus briefs in a host of other major lawsuits, many of which have challenged the U.S. government’s surveillance and detention of terrorism suspects. Vladeck, who is a co-editor of Aspen Publishers’ leading national security and counterterrorism law casebooks, has authored reports on related topics for a wide range of organizations, including the First Amendment Center, the Constitution Project, and the ABA’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
“Military Justice and Article III”
The Supreme Court has long held that federal adjudication before judges lacking Article III’s salary and tenure protections is permissible today only in the three categories of cases in which the Court has previously allowed it — all cases before federal “territorial” courts; criminal prosecutions before military tribunals; and “public rights” adjudication before non-Article III judicial or administrative bodies. And although the Justices have repeatedly grappled with the outer bounds of this last category in recent years, they have generally accepted the first two as settled. Scholars have followed suit, with virtually all of the extensive literature in the field focusing on the specific scope of the public rights exception, or on the search for cross-cutting theories of Article III. As a result, it has been decades since any concerted effort has been undertaken to rationalize the scope of the military exception — whether to the Constitution’s text or purpose or to more prudential considerations. And although the similarly neglected territorial courts have remained largely untouched over the past quarter-century, the same period has witnessed significant expansions in the scope of both court-martial and military commission jurisdiction to encompass offenses and offenders not previously thought to be amenable to military, rather than civilian, trials. Although these expansions have been especially pronounced with regard to the scope of court-martial jurisdiction, they are also reflected in, for example, the en banc D.C. Circuit’s 2014 decision in the Al Bahlul Guantánamo military commission appeal. Given these expansions, the litigation that they have provoked, and the tensions they have placed upon the military exception, the time has long since passed for a reassessment of where and how military justice fits into our understanding of Article III.
Cleveland State Law Review Symposium - "History and the Meaning of the Constitution," co-sponsored by the Federalist Society
- Patrick Charles, "History as a Guidepost to Interpreting the Constitution"
- Sheldon Gelman, "Court-packing and the 'Switch in Time': Recent Developments"
- Scott Gerber, "Liberal Originalism: The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation"
- Lee Strang, "Originalism's Promise and Limits"
Joy Cumming is a Professor of Education in the Faculty of Education and Arts at the Australian Catholic University, leading a research program on Assessment, Evaluation and Student Learning within the Learning Sciences Institute Australia. Originally a secondary school teacher in English and Mathematics, she has been involved in educational research for nearly 40 years.
The origins of Australian and US law from the English system should indicate that the systems are similar. Both have statute and common law, both make assumptions of innocence and pursue adversarial approaches to establishing guilt or liability. In practice, especially for education law, four core differences, three from Constitutional law and one from public law, frame the impact of both education praxis and legal challenges. This presentation will provide an overview of Australian law, and differences from US law, with examples of the impact of the differences on education law challenges: Individual rights; Reserve powers; the Establishment Clause, and the Briginshaw principle for burden of proof.