5450 research outputs found
Sort by
Toward “The Most Freedom”: Decriminalizing Sex Work Alleviates Housing Discrimination and Housing Instability Faced By Sex Workers in New York City
Get PDFWhile sex work has been incrementally decriminalized in New York City, statutes that criminalize some forms of sex work remain good law in New York City and generate potentially life-altering penalties for sex workers who are arrested or convicted under these laws. This leads to complications for sex workers who seek to rent apartments. The New York City Human Rights Law, the City’s anti-discrimination statute, does not offer explicit protection to sex workers against housing discrimination, and two criminal laws penalize property owners for allowing sex work to occur on or near their premises. This Note explores the shortcomings of the New York City Human Rights Law as it applies to housing discrimination faced by sex workers, and names the dangers faced by sex workers whose landlords are criminally penalized for allowing sex work to occur on or near their properties. It emphasizes that the sex workers most likely to be criminalized and shut out of housing are Black and brown women who perform street-based work. This Note’s solution is the decriminalization of sex work in all aspects. Doing so is one straightforward way to improve sex workers’ access to housing, as nearly every rental application requires a criminal background check. This Note calls attention to current legislation that would decriminalize sex work in New York City, and other legislation that would allow sex workers to clear their criminal convictions. As an alternative solution, this Note suggests that criminal background checks be prohibited in housing applications, a step that would remove a major hurdle to obtaining safe, stable housing
Shantay You Stay: Keeping Kids at Drag Shows
Get PDFGroomers. Pedophiles. Sexual Predators. All these words and phrases represent an age-old campaign by conservatives and right-wing politicians to persecute the LGBTQ+ community and stoke an unfounded fear amongst their base that LGBTQ+ people are harmful to children. In recent years, conservatives have focused these narratives on specific subsets of the LGBTQ+ community, particularly drag artists and performers. This has resulted in a significant backlash against the drag community in the form of protests, violence, and criminalization of drag performers. Rather than turning drag performers into a scapegoat for conservative politicians’ own ineptitude, our society should holistically embrace and support the drag community. To achieve this, this Note examines the legal and social history of drag within the United States. These historical examinations reveal parallels between past and present discourses around persecuting drag, gender expression, and the broader LGBTQ+ community. To rectify today’s situation, a range of policy and legal reforms must be undertaken including increased public funding, broader community support for drag performers, early education on LGBTQ+ history and culture, and overturning unconstitutional restrictions on drag
Enterprise, Liability, and Insolvency: An Essay in Honor of Aaron Twerski
Get PDFModern tort law links concepts of duty, duty of care, causation, and compensatory damages in a manner that, it is hoped, simultaneously communicates moral suasion, redresses wrongs, and incentivizes “reasonable” socially appropriate behavior. Deterrence and corrective justice differ fiercely about the scope of and rationale for liability, but both assume that tortfeasors are good for their debts (or at least insured). This is not always the case. Sometimes, debtors are insolvent. Bankruptcy law provides individuals with a route to a fresh start, and this paper considers the relationship between modern tort law and the discharge of debt in bankruptcy. The concept of a bankruptcy discharge—the “fresh start”—has deep historical roots in the idea of the “honest but unfortunate debtor.” However, recent high-profile bankruptcy cases involving mass torts have signaled to the world that something is amiss. A short list of harms, discharged in bankruptcy, include opioid addiction, allegedly carcinogenic baby powder, and sex abuse (in churches, gymnastics, and the Boy Scouts). Chapter 11’s goal of value maximization through continuation of the business enterprise is in tension with tort law’s goals of internalization and redress. This Article first links the bankruptcy power to grant global resolution of mass tort liability to the existence of financial distress. It then fleshes out the concept of “good faith” and what it means to “deserve” a bankruptcy discharge. It proceeds in four steps. First, this Article explains the utility of and common justification for granting a mandatory discharge in mass tort cases in both bankruptcy and limited fund class actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, it evaluates the first and second J&J talc filings in light of that standard and finds that neither passes the straight-face test. Third, it takes a dystopic look beyond the bankruptcy law silo to consider the relationship between insolvency and recourse in tort law. Lastly, this Article posits the proper relationship between bankruptcy law and recourse in tort by describing what it means to be an “honest but unfortunate enterprise” entitled to “global peace.
Limiting 28 U.S.C. § 1782: A Changed Landscape for Discovery in Private Commercial Arbitration Abroad
No full textFor decades 28 U.S.C. § 1782 has been used by foreign entities looking to compel discovery in the United States for use in commercial arbitration proceedings abroad. Despite the statute being in force since 1948, many federal courts were unsure of whether § 1782 could actually be used in international private commercial arbitration. The Supreme Court tried and failed to clarify the statute’s scope in 2004, leading to a circuit court split as to §1782’s applicability. Looking to end the controversy once and for all, during the Summer of 2022, the Supreme Court clearly stated that § 1782 might not be used by parties involved in private commercial arbitration abroad. This decision leaves foreign companies with one less option to compel discovery in arbitration proceedings against parties from the United States. These companies may decide to file suit in a United States Federal Court to obtain discovery, then drop the case to pursue arbitration. They may also try to compel Congress to pass an amendment to § 1782 that explicitly allows discovery in such proceedings. Finally, they may redraft arbitration clauses in their contracts to contain more explicit rules for discovery. While all three options have advantages, drafting effective discovery clauses in agreements to arbitrate is the best way to fill the gap left by the inapplicability of § 1782
Battling Baby Brokers: A Comparative Analysis of the United States’ Versus Europe’s Adoption Policies
Get PDFChild adoption involves the permanent transfer of parental rights from a child’s biological or legal parents to another party. Parties in the Unites States (US) have engaged in this process in various forms for centuries. Today, over one hundred thousand children are adopted by American families each year. Many of these adoptions take place privately through agencies. An agency assists in the process of matching prospective adoptive parents with birth parents from whom they will adopt a child. In exchange for this assistance, the prospective adoptive parents pay tens of thousands of dollars in fees and expenses to the agency and, in many circumstances, to the birth parents as well. Despite the inherent risks associated with a business model built upon brokering the exchange of children for money, private adoption agencies go largely unchecked by the US government. This relative freedom to contract for children perpetuates exploitation and corruption by allowing adoption agencies to prioritize profit at the expense of vulnerable populations. By contract, European countries like France, Germany, and Italy maintain stringent regulations and guidelines over the child adoption process. The countries offer more flexibility in structuring the adoption, stricter government oversight throughout the process, and greater transparency from all parties involved. This Note argues that the reason for these differences between the domestic adoption processes is that the US prioritizes profits over people while these Europe countries focus principally on the child’s best interests. The US has turned domestic adoption into a privatized business where the focus of the process is money rather than the child. Europe does not allow potential revenue to eclipse the intended purpose of adoption to give a child in need a suitable home and life. This Note argues that the US would benefit from engaging in greater oversight and enacting broader guidelines, and that the government should look to these European countries for a better model