JD Journal » religion

Supreme Court To Decide On Mojave Cross

Erik Even — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:32:54 +0000

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether or not a cross honoring fallen soldiers in the Mojave National Preserve is a violation of the 1st Amendment. It will be the first time that the court will hear a case regarding “an establishment of religion” with John Roberts as the Chief Justice.

The current cross is eight feet tall, though a smaller wooden cross was erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1934 and was maintained by the National Park Service as a war memorial.

The American Civil Liberties Union objected to the cross and filed a suit on behalf of Frank Buono, a former Park Service employee. The suit noted that the government declined to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross.

The case appeared before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled in favor of the ACLU, declaring the cross an “impermissible government endorsement of religion.”

The government has questioned Buono’s right to challenge the cross. Mr. Buono lives in Oregon and, according to government lawyers, suffers no obvious harm because of the cross’ existence.

Idiot Judge Jails Woman for Wearing Muslim Head Covering in Court

Erik Even — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:00:59 +0000

A legal adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is demanding that a Georgia judge apologize for jailing a woman who refused to remove her hijab, the traditional Muslim head covering, in court.

Abed A. Ayoub writes:

The hijab is worn by millions of Muslim women in accordance with their belief in Islam. Some choose to wear a hijab, a symbol of modesty, while others do not…

In America, a majority of Muslim women who choose to wear a hijab cover only their hair, leaving the face visible for identification, as was the case with the woman sent to jail by [Judge Keith] Rollins.

Asking a Muslim woman to remove her hijab upon entering a courtroom is similar to asking a nun to remove her religious habit, a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke or a Sikh man to remove his turban.

Ayoub also makes the legal case that Rollins’ actions were unconstitutional.

Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents an individual from being deprived of or threatened with the loss of equal protection of the laws on account of race, color, religion or national origin by being denied equal use of any public facility. Denial of access to a courtroom based on religion is blatant discrimination.

Read the rest of the statement in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Dechert Denies Ex-Associate’s Claims

Erik Even — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:49:17 +0000

Former Dechert LLP associate Marc Dubin has sued the firm for allegedly making false promises to lure him to the Philadelphia firm, and for allegedly firing him for being Jewish.

Dubin’s suit seeks nearly $6 million in back pay and damages.

The firm and its counsel at Miller & Wrubel say that every one of Lubin’s claims is false. Dechert says no one lied to Lubin during the interview process in October 2002, and they deny the allegation that Lubin’s religion played a part in his dismissal.

Dechert’s team also says the suit is barred by statute of limitations rules and seven other affirmative defenses.

As for Lubin’s claim that he was a highly sought-after commodity who left a “secure” $215,000 job at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for the chance of more fulfilling work at his new firm, Dechert again challenges the notion. It denies that Lubin’s job at Skadden was actually “secure,” though the firm doesn’t explain how it knows this.

Skadden did not immediately respond to questions about Lubin’s tenure there.

Lubin had been at Skadden since about 1999 after short stints at both Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Latham & Watkins. He graduated from Columbia Law School in 1994.

He claims Dechert offered him work on a complex deal involving the securitization of attorneys fees from tobacco litigation. The deal, which he described as “poorly organized” and “in total disarray” by the time he arrived, eventually fell apart, Lubin’s complaint says.

I gotta tell ya, if I could sue ex-employers for giving me a crummy job, I’d be a billionaire.

Via Am Law Daily.