Change Comes Slowly to Rural United States

The issue of homosexual rights is an extremely touchy one in Montana. In 2008, a statewide controversy erupted once it was discovered that a copy of “The Joy of Gay Sex” was included in Helena’s Lewis & Clark Library. Homosexual acts are still illegal in the state; a referendum that would have decriminalized such acts was killed in the state’s legislature in 2011. Now, the city of Helena, the state’s capital, may soon debate a bill protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, as well as other groups such as pregnant women and single mothers.

Where is Helena anyway?
 
Helenarests at the very southern tip of Montana in Lewis & Clark County. The state’s capital boasts little over 28,000 citizens. An important landmark in state legislature and history, Helen symbolizes much of the tradition and inherent drama of the American West. The city naturally stands as an important place of influence in a traditionally conservative area. This legal change in thinking would be odd, especially with homosexual acts still banned in the state, but the discrimination law may become example of instituting actionable change as opposed to state level protection for homosexuals.

Discrimination Law in Montana
 
Change in discrimination law has been slow to come in Montana. The state is not just behind current trends on homosexual rights: single mothers and pregnant women remain unprotected by state law as well. In fact, the broadest and protective discrimination laws in Montana are those Federal laws which protect against discrimination in the workplace.  Simply put, Montana appears to be as far from embracing liberal social values as any state in the Union.

The Power of Change
 
If the law passes, however, it would be recognized as a powerful symbol of the nation’s changing perception of civil rights. The landmark American law on discrimination remains the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While far from being the last Civil Rights law passed in the United States, that piece of legislature has defined modern civil rights; however, it is famously non-inclusive of gay rights. As such, sexual orientation advocacy has become the most prominent civil rights issue of the decade.

As individuals in Montana slowly strive to change how its public thinks about discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgender, bisexual, single mothers and pregnant women, the issue remains a hot button around the United States. If you feel you’ve been discriminated against, call the Law Offices of Valli, Kane & Vagnini today.

Congressman Todd Akin Fans Controversy Again

Todd Akin’s reputation for controversy hopefully peaked in . The Missouri Congressman, a Republican,  went on television in Saint Louis and implied that he believes women cannot become pregnant due to rape. The statement was immediately condemned by both Democrats and Republicans including Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan. Akin was immediately painted as a right wing extremist, a portrait of everything that is wrong with the Republican party: lack of education, ignorance of science, creating biological facts to support a moral position—in this case, abortion.
Now, Akin is in trouble again, this time for not supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The controversy, though minor when compared to the fallout from his statements regarding rape and abortion, illustrates that women’s rights remains a hot-button issue, even in 2012.
Nearly fifteen years ago, a supervisor at Goodyear filed suit against her employer, citing unequal pay. On the surface, it was a cut and dry case of discrimination, one well covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the defense found a loophole: They said she filed too late. The plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter, filed suit only six months before retirement. The court said because she’d known about the pay issue since 1992 and waited six years before suing, the complaint was outside the Civil Rights Act’s statute of limitations.
Congressional Democrats rapidly drafted a bill that would eliminate the statute of limitations. It went to congress in 2008 and was voted down; it went back to Congress the following year and passed confidently.
Akin Opposes Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Controversy Surrounding the Act
Akin was among those who opposed the bill. He reasoned in a September 2012 statement that he voted against the Fair Pay Act because it represented further government intrusion on capitalism. Many Republicans voted against the bill because eliminating the statute of limitations might cause chaos in the courts, inviting nonsensical yet legally valid lawsuits against companies, even companies who have changed leadership since alleged discriminatory acts took place.
Todd Akin’s Position and Further Controversy
Akin’s lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is now being used as election capital. The Congressman is, in some circles, popularly viewed as a chauvinist. His election opponent, Claire McCaskill, is a woman. His extremely suspect statements regarding rape and pregnancy indicate conservative social values that stem from naivete. How his statements relating to the Lilly Ledbetter Act will affect his re-election campaign is unknown. The very existence of the Act in 2009, however, proves that pay discrimination exists in America today. If you feel you have been discriminated against because of your gender, call the Law Offices of Valli, Kane & Vagnini today for a free consultation.

Weight Discrimination: The Issue of the Future?


Weight Discrimination AttorneysWhat do you think of when you think “employment discrimination?” The major civil rights victories of the 1960s are characteristically thought of as racial battles. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was seen largely as a victory for Americans of color. The Act was preceded in 1963 by the Equal Pay Act, which sought to guarantee equal pay for women. Both laws include broad, sweeping reform in terms of race, gender, nationality and religion.
In the 2010s, it appears as if new civil rights issues are finally culminating in American culture, especially the legal system. This coming election will be key to the future of gay rights, the most talked about social issue of the day.
One other civil rights issue is emerging, however, that was rarely spoken of in the 1960s: obesity. With claims of discrimination based on weight and size on the rise, what’s the future of civil rights for overweight Americans?

Is it Legal to Discriminate Based on Weight?

Currently, there are no laws on the books which protect the obese from discrimination. However, it is becoming common to use the Civil Rights Act of 1991 as a platform for obesity rights. The law opens the possibility for obesity-related discrimination cases along several metrics. For instance, if an individual was discriminated against, and his/her obesity is disease-related, then illegal discrimination may have taken place. Obesity discrimination may or may not be race related in some cases, as obesity rates are statistically higher among Latinos and African Americans.

Did Title VII Leave Obese Individuals Out?

There’s no question that obesity is on the rise in the United States. There’s very little question that popular culture in the U.S. glorifies the skinny, the healthy, and the glamorous. It is profoundly ironic to see advertisements for popular fast food restaurants like McDonald’s and Carl’s Jr. featuring supermodels with hamburgers—and it is profoundly illustrative of America’s double standard in terms of exploitation of–and discrimination against–the obese.

The Exception to the Rule

One state in the Union protects against obesity-related discrimination: Michigan. Conversely, the state also passed a law protecting fast food restaurants from being sued over obesity. Other states are known to have considered enacting laws protecting the obese.
If you feel you have been discriminated against because of your weight, especially in the realm of employment, you should consider your legal options. Call the law offices of Valli Kane & Vagnini today for a free consultation.

A Small Town with a Rich Civil Rights History

st. augustine gay rightsWhen you drive through the small town of St. Augustine, Florida, your only thought is likely to be how nice of a vacation spot you’re in. Its architecture is gorgeous. The setting is idyllic. The city’s atmosphere is laid back. It is a city that is proud of its storied history, the first European settlement of the New World, one of the most contested cities in America before the nation was unified. What you may not know, however, is that St. Augustine has also been a focal point in America’s struggle for civil rights, and that it recently took a symbolic step in progressing gay rights in Florida. The small town’s struggles are a microcosm of racial and sexual discrimination in America.

Remarkable History

When Ponce de Leon sailed from Spain in the early 1500s, his supposed quest for a literal fountain of youth (it’s likely that de Leon wasn’t looking for the fountain of youth; most historians now state he was in it for the money) led him to a land he called La Florida, or “flowery.” Though unproven, many hold that Ponce de Leon’s feet first trod upon Saint Augustine when he landed. St. Augustine was nonetheless claimed by the Spaniards, then the British, then the Spaniards again before being folded into the United States. In the late 1800s, St. Augustine was discovered and then established as a vacation town, where rich tycoons financed the opulent architecture that now characterizes the city.

Desegregation

In the 1960s, efforts to desegregate elementary schools exploded in contentious, often violent protest. Martin Luther King, Jr. made St. Augustine a focal point of the desegregationist movement. It is said by some that, because of this tumultuous time in the city’s history, the nation as a whole finally understood the villainy of the Klu Klux Klan, an organization instrumental in the violence of the time, and the need for civil rights. It was the events of St. Augustine that tipped the national consciousness toward true racial progress.

Gay Rights

Over the years, St. Augustine’s reputation has gone back into the shadows, the town once again enjoying annual vacationers from all over the U.S. However, the city recently, quietly tacked on a footnote to its storied history. St. Augustine recently made it illegal to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation when deciding if an individual can rent or own a home.
Currently, sexual orientation in terms of housing is not prohibited on a federal level. However, the states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin prohibit such discrimination, as well as many cities throughout the U.S.
It is clear that not all areas of the United States are as progressive in the arena of civil rights as the small town of St. Augustine, Florida. The city’s struggles, however, may mirror struggles of your own. If you feel you’ve been discriminated against in any manner, please call the Law Offices of Valli, Kane & Vagnini for a free consultation.

Augusta Golf Club Opens Its Doors to Women

gender discrimination Quietly and confidently, IBM has stood up for social change and progress. The company is supportive of same sex unions, especially in famously homophobic areas of the world like North Korea. The powerful corporation was key in instituting racial diversity in its workforce long before it was politically or culturally popular, its Equal Opportunity Policy remaining virtually unchanged since 1953. International Business Machines has been a strong proponent in putting women in places of power. One of the lead designers on the original IBM PC—which, along with the automobile and airplane stands as one of the greatest consumer inventions of the 20th century—was female.
While the company’s reputation as a computing powerhouse has been overshadowed by Microsoft and then Apple in the past twenty years (IBM left the personal computing almost a decade ago), it remains a singular voice in computing, and in progressive social policy.
IBM’s voice got even louder back in April. IBM has been a longtime sponsor of golf’s Masters Tournament, held at the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. The Club has always admitted IBM executives as members—until IBM hired its first female CEO, Ginni Rometty, in January 2012. Many thought that the Club should admit Rometty as a member, finally divesting itself of its historically male-only policy. The Club refused, garnering a media firestorm and threats to IBM’s sponsorship of the Masters. The Augusta was famously silent in defending its policies—until today.
Women admitted to the Augusta National Golf Club
In an about-face, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and high-octane businesswoman Darla Moore, were admitted as the first two women to be granted membership to the August Club. Strangely enough, the Club has made no decision as of yet to admit Ginni Rometty (IBM continues to sponsor the Masters).
Golf and Social Progress
The Augusta Club’s longstanding sexist policies symbolize one of the ugly truths about golf: it is the United States’ least progressive sport. During Tiger Woods’ peak in the late 1990s, some clubs decided to admit minority members for the first time—a full thirty-five years after Alabama schools were integrated. As much as the PGA touts its progressive policies, golf remains glaringly behind the curve in terms of social progress.
Is It Legal for Golf Clubs to Discriminate?
The Augusta National Golf Club’s policy of not admitting women is, according to U.S. law, legal and legitimate. However, in many segments of our national culture, especially the workplace, discrimination is highly illegal. If you feel you have been discriminated against due to gender, race, sexual orientation, or religious belief, call the Law Offices of Valli, Kane and Vagnini to speak with a trained professional.

Hershey Experiences Bitter Taste of Discrimination Defeat


Hershey school discrimination Somewhere in Philadelphia, a boy wanted to go to school. He came from a broken home, a challenging background. He was, however, determined. He worked hard in school, earning his place on the honor roll. He applied to the Milton Hershey School, which provides food, housing and a top-notch education to children with special needs. The Milton Hershey School turned this exceptional child down. Was it his grades? No. According to the school, the boy was denied admission because he is HIV positive.
The AIDs Law Project found out, got behind the young man and his story, and sued. Today, the Milton Hershey School is about to pay out a settlement totaling nearly $750,000. In addition, the school has issued a public apology and has offered to reconsider the potential student’s application. The case appears to have been a clear cut case of illegal discrimination.
A Painful Denial
Nine words cost the Milton Hershey School the case: “direct threat to the health and safety of others.” The school claimed that because the young man is HIV positive, he should not be allowed to live, eat and be educated with other students at Milton Hershey. Little is known about the school’s defense other than those nine words. If based solely on that, what does the school have to go on? According to the Aids Healthcare Foundation, the legal precedent for such an act was laid nearly thirty years ago, when a young man named Ryan White was expelled for being HIV positive. Now, in the 2010s, we celebrate the potential for finding a very real cure for HIV. The disease is far more manageable than it was in the days of Ryan White. In today’s reality, why would a young man with HIV pose a “direct threat to the health and safety of others?”
A History of Understanding
It has been nearly three decades since HIV first became a terrifying disease. The public’s perception of individuals was changed vastly a full two decades ago when NBA legend Magic Johnson announced he had contracted HIV. The disease was associated with homosexuality and, by definition in the mid-1980s, with homophobia. Once Magic made the announcement, it was widely accepted that HIV-positive individuals were all normal human beings tragically dealing with a potentially lethal disease. That should have been the Milton Hershey School’s point of view in 2012. However, this very real and very modern case illustrates the fact that ignorance and discrimination are alive and well in the United States and our school system.

Inexplicable Hate: The Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting

The world’s attention was captivated last week by the small Wisconsin town of Oak Creek. The Midwestern city, home to fewer than 35,000, was devastated when Wade Michael Page opened fire on a Sikh house of worship. He murdered six people and wounded four others, killing himself after being wounded by a police officer. Oak Creek, a largely unknown city, found itself being mentioned by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of India.
Ignorance and Hate Toward the Sikh Faith
To those with a shallow or naive understanding of Middle Eastern and Asian faith, Sikhs are often confused with Muslims. Sikhs often wear turbans which some, including hate groups, ignorantly associate with Islam and even terrorism.
The reality is that the Sikh faith and Islam are almost totally unrelated. Its leaders are different. Its texts, history, and faith practices are also different.
Wade Michael Page’s personal history includes ties to hate groups; those ties and his checkered criminal history (which includes a dishonorable discharge from the Army and job terminations due to drunk driving) indicate that the crime may have been a hate crime.  The FBI has chosen to investigate the crime as an act of domestic terrorism, however.
What is Domestic Terrorism?
Domestic terrorism is, essentially, exactly what it sounds like: terrorism on domestic soil. It is interesting that the FBI chose to investigate this crime as an act of domestic terror. Typically, incidents where one individual is solely responsible for violent acts are not investigated as domestic terrorism—it would be looked into as a hate crime. The FBI has chosen to pursue the investigation as an act of domestic terror, even as evidence mounts that Page acted alone.
What is a Hate Crime?
A hate crime is a crime perpetrated against an individual or individuals because of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual preference. Prosecution of a hate crime may involve civil actions as well as criminal prosecutions.
Are They Investigated Differently?
In the United States, domestic terrorism and hate crimes fall under the same umbrella: the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It may have no bearing, at the end of the day, how the Oak Creek shooting is investigated. With the death of the perpetrator, the true definition of this crime—whether it’s domestic terrorism, or a hate crime, or both, or more—may never be known. The shooting does, however, underscore the horrific cost of hate and ignorance against individuals of faith in the United States.
If you feel you’re being discriminated against, whether personally or in the workplace, call the Law Offices of Valli, Kane & Vagnini today for a free consultation.

Overtime Pay for Home Health Care


overtime pay home healthWith the approach of the retirement of a huge number of Baby Boomers, the home health care industry is quickly becoming one of the fastest-growing and most scrutinized young industries in the country. Among the features of the industry that might soon be changing is its exemption from overtime pay laws. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and only time (and a healthy dose of politics) will decide the issue.
The Controversy
Since its solidification as a large-scale field of work, in-home care has been exempt from some of the laws that other employers and employees must follow. While this has given caregivers a great amount of flexibility in the way they are paid by clients and the way they record their work, it has also drawn the attention of some who claim that the employment rights of caregivers are not being protected. Some caregivers might find themselves working excessive hours under difficult conditions, with no promise of extra compensation in return.
View #1
Those advocating the removal of the industry’s exemption from overtime law say that the problem is clear: In-home caregivers should have the same protections that most other employees enjoy. Nurses, doctors, and even housecleaners receive overtime pay, and non-medical caregivers should get the same. In many cases, there is a concern that family members of seniors could take advantage of the exemption and ask caregivers to do more work, possibly on their own time, without paying them more.
View #2
The opposite side—including many members of the caregiving field itself—argue that the overtime exemption is important and valuable. It gives caregivers the liberty to do the job that needs to be done without keeping cumbersome logs. The nature of the job is so complicated that overtime does not work the way it does in other industries. For example, if a caregiver wants to take some of the client’s laundry home and do it there, would she have to log the time she spends doing it and claim overtime pay for it?
At this point, and certainly in the near future if these questions continue to swirl, in-home caregivers are in a legally murky situation. If you have confusion about what your rights are in your situation, let Valli, Kane & Vagnini help you figure it out. We look forward to meeting you and helping you with your legal needs.

The Great Showdown: The Supreme Court, Arizona, and Immigration


On June 25th, the Supreme Court issued its decision in what will prove to be one of the most important cases in our country’s immigration history. Arizona v. United States considered the Constitutionality of SB1070, an Arizona state law granting state police unprecedented authority to identify and arrest illegal immigrants within its borders.

The law was championed by (now former) Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, who is known as one of the nation’s most vocal adversaries of illegal immigration. Pearce and his followers cite to two primary concerns about illegal immigration: (1) they believe that illegal Mexican immigrants are stealing jobs from U.S. citizens living in Arizona, and (2) that the Mexican drug war, which by all accounts is violently out of control, is spilling into the United States and, specifically, across Arizona’s borders.
On April 23, 2010, SB1070 was passed into law. However, after a contentious battle, challengers of the novel new law convinced the Supreme Court to get involved. On Monday, the Court struck down several provisions of SB1070 law. Now, with the recently failed election bid of the law’s creator, former Senator Pearce, the political crusade against Arizona’s illegal immigration has been tempered.
What the High Court Struck Down
Three extremely contentious provisions of SB1070 were struck down by the high court. Section 6 allowed police, in certain cases, to make warrantless arrest of individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants. Section 3 made it a crime for legal immigrants to be present in the state of Arizona without valid immigration papers. Finally,  Section 5(c) imposed criminal penalties on illegal immigrants who seek or accept work in the United States without authorization. All three of these provisions of the law were preempted by federal immigration laws, and therefore struck down by the Court.
What the High Court Upheld
The Supreme Court did, however, maintain what Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called the “heart” of the law: Section 2(b) allows Arizona state police are permitted to investigate the legality of individuals if they do so while enforcing other laws.
State vs. Federal Sovereignty
In several cases throughout American history, civil rights law has boiled down to states’ policing power v. the powers that the Constitution expressly grants to the federal government. In Arizona v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the circumstances in which immigration enforcement – which has traditionally been a federal power – can justifiably be carried out by states as part of their policing powers. One way or another this decision will have far reaching implications in the world of civil rights law.
If you feel your civil rights as an immigrant have been violated, call the Law Offices of Valli, Kane & Vagnini for a free consultation.

South Florida Fire Department Under EEOC Investigation


Snug in Florida’s deep south, Davie, Florida is a town known for its Western roots, featuring a western-themed amusement park, and more citizens with horses than you can shake a stick at. Davie’s population of about 92,000 is supported by five fire stations, nos. 38, 65, 68, 91 and 104. The hundred year old town, once an out of the way western paradise, is now hitting the news as the subject of allegations of Title VII discrimination at its fire department.
A Host of Discrimination Complaints
The discrimination claims appear not to be an isolated incident: 18 Title VII claims in total are allegedly under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC (the EEOC does not publicly discuss or confirm whether complaints are being investigated). Ten of the 18 charging parties are being represented by two attorneys. The most damning complaint comes from a female firefighter who claims she was unfairly subjected to full duty during the first trimester of her pregnancy. This charging party is alleging that eight (8) days after fighting a fire with her colleagues, she miscarried.
An Alleged Culture of Sexism and Bigotry
The charges center on complaints of sexism and bigotry. The most publicized involve the above case of miscarriage, as well as the story of Linda Stokoe. Stokoe was a fire inspector for the city, but was allegedly fired due to sex discrimination. The former inspector claims she was ordered to keep records of her bathroom visits, and that women were generally believed by her peers to be unfit for firefighting. Another charge alleges discrimination against a Jewish American, who claims derogatory terms and slurs were used against him.
How Does Title VII Apply?
Title VII, as amended, directly prohibits discrimination in the workplace on account of gender, race and religion, among other protected categories. The complaints described against the Davie, Florida Fire Department include racial and gender slurs, preferential treatment, and statements (direct, not implied statements) that women and some minorities are unfit to serve in the Fire Department. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was instituted, nearly every generation of EEOC leadership interpreting the Act has prohibited such treatment.
Is This Your Story?
If you feel that your race, gender, religion, national origin, disability or age have played an unnecessary role at your job, or even in your attempts to find work, then you may have a claim of discrimination. For further information and a free consultation, call the law offices of Valli, Kane & Vagnini today.