-
OBABL Links & Resources
2009 April
Apr
30
Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that Christine C. Anderson, a black former staff attorney for the 1st Department, which oversees the conduct of attorneys in Manhattan and the Bronx, can proceed with her lawsuit. NewYorkLawJournal
Christine C. Anderson contended that her June 2007 firing was in retaliation for complaints she made to her superiors at the disciplinary committee that at least nine cases had been handled too leniently because the lawyers being investigated were politically connected or were represented by attorneys who had previously worked for the committee (NYLJ, Oct. 30, 2007).
While the judge did throw out Anderson’s claim that she was fired because she was black, the former staff attorney’s “whitewashing” statements were ruled to be in the interest of the public and thus protected by the First Amendment.
Anderson, who was born in Jamaica, also claimed the committee had discriminated against her on the basis of race, color and national origin.
The disciplinary committee operates under the aegis of the Appellate Division, First Department, and Anderson sued the OCA; Thomas J. Cahill, the committee’s chief counsel during the years Anderson was employed there; Sherry K. Cohen, who became deputy chief counsel and Anderson’s supervisor in 2003; and David Spokoney, the 1st Department’s deputy clerk. With the exception of Cahill, who resigned in 2007 after 10 years in the post (NYLJ, July 23, 2007), the other individual defendants remain at their jobs.
The 1st Department’s disciplinary committee polices the conduct of attorneys practicing in Manhattan and the Bronx.
In allowing Anderson to proceed with her retaliation claim, Scheindlin found that her contention that the committee had “whitewashed” as many as nine cases touched upon a subject of public concern and was protected under the First Amendment.
Way to keep ‘em honest, Christine!
Apr
24
Bernice and Martin have had it with Dexter running the King Center into the ground. This week they were in court explaining their ignorance regarding a $800,000 licensing deal involving the King foundation. From BlackLegalIssues:
The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Foundation paid the $800,000 fee to the King estate in 2007 to use the civil rights icon’s words and images in fundraising materials, and the two siblings say they found out about it through the media.
“When we were made aware of it, it was already a done deal,” Bernice King told The Associated Press. “Our understanding was that this was about the King Center being able to survive.”
In a statement last week, the King estate said there was no fee charged for the use of the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s name, image and words on the memorial itself, and that the licensing agreement benefited the center, not King’s heirs.
As for when money factored into the deal, “we don’t know when that happened,” Bernice King said.
Both Kings said they have not been involved in decisions about their father’s estate since 2004, and that Dexter King has acted on his own for years as head of the estate and the center, the nonprofit organization founded by Coretta Scott King shortly after her husband’s assassination in 1968. She died in 2006, and Bernice King handles her estate. The eldest King sibling, Yolanda, died in 2007.
Apr
24
Oprah’s ‘Aha Moment’ Causes Lawsuit
Filed Under Defame • Leave a Comment
Just a few days ago, Oprah’s lawyers fired off a cease and desist letter to Mutual of Omaha demanding they shut down their plans to run a gigantic advertising campaign with the slogan, “Official sponsor of the aha moment.”
In the letter, sent April 21, Oprah’s peeps claim they have the rights to the “Aha Moment” slogan and they threatened to sue because O doesn’t want Mutual to mislead her fans into thinking she’s associated with them.
But Mutual of Omaha is fighting back with a lawsuit, claiming that even if Oprah had trademark rights to the phrase, she “abandoned” those rights by failing to “police their alleged mark” when other businesses used it in the past.
Apr
22
Judge Gloria Clark Reno, who has served as an associate circuit judge, is prepared for the challenges ahead. From the SLA:
“I feel very fortunate and very honored that the governor appointed me to this position,” she said. “I will continue to work hard to make sure that I serve the citizens of St. Louis County with distinction.”
Gov. Jay Nixon appointed Reno, who has been an associate circuit judge for seven years, to the 21st Judicial Circuit Court position this month. No date has been set for her swearing in ceremony. In her new position, Reno will handle civil and criminal felony cases.
“She is very committed and dedicated,” said Former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronnie L. White, who has known Reno for 20 years.
“She has a great judicial temperament. I’m excited about how well she has progressed through her legal career, and she will continue to make substantial contributions to the law as the newest circuit judge for St. Louis County.”
Apr
21
Supreme Court Tackles Race
Filed Under Social Engineer, Supreme Court • Leave a Comment
…Yet, somehow it ends up being all about President, Barack Obama. From BlackLegalIssues:
The new president is partly a reflection of the legacy of voting rights laws that help to ensure participation by minorities in the electoral process. And yet, his victory is fueling arguments before the Supreme Court that some voting rights protections aren’t necessary anymore.
His “historic election … stands as a remarkable testament to the tremendous progress this country has made in terms of racial equality and voting,” says the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation.
The foundation has signed one of six “friend of the court” briefs siding with a Texas utility district’s challenge to Congress’ 2006 renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The landmark law sought to end discrimination at the polls, in part by giving the U.S. Justice Department the power to oversee election laws in parts of the country with a history of bias.
Civil rights advocates, among the groups signing 18 such briefs on the other side, are battling any potential decrease in enforcement of federal civil rights laws, from those that protect voting rights to those that shield minorities from even indirect discrimination in the workplace.
“We still have a lot of work to do,” says John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, arguing the 2008 election that vaulted Obama to the presidency also included situations in which some black voters faced intimidation at the polls.
The Supreme Court has been deeply split over how to respond to racial disputes. Since the addition of Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, it has grown more resistant to policies intended to benefit minorities as a group.
Roberts wrote in a 2007 decision throwing out school integration plans in Seattle and the Louisville area that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” The plans considered race in students’ school assignments for district diversity.
A year earlier, in a voting-rights case, Roberts referred to “a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a 1988 appointee of Ronald Reagan, has become the swing vote in this area. Kennedy generally opposes government policies that take account of an individual’s race, either in the workplace or in schools. He has tried to chart a middle course. In 2007, he voted with the four more conservative justices to strike down school integration plans but objected to “an all-too-unyielding insistence that race cannot be a factor” in achieving diversity.
