The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to address a significant legal conflict among lower courts regarding the standards plaintiffs must meet to pursue claims against employee benefit plans accused of engaging in prohibited transactions. These cases often involve transactions between the benefit plans and third-party companies regulated under federal law. The court’s decision could clarify how strictly these claims should be evaluated under the law.

The Cornell University Case: Dismissal by the Lower Court

The Supreme Court will review a ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed a class-action lawsuit involving 28,000 Cornell University employees. The plaintiffs accused the university’s retirement plans of paying excessive fees for recordkeeping services, violating the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). According to the plaintiffs, these fees were unnecessary and prohibited under ERISA’s regulations.

What is ERISA, and Why is it Relevant?

ERISA governs employer-sponsored retirement plans and prohibits certain transactions with third parties unless necessary for the plan’s operation and involves reasonable costs. The Cornell plaintiffs argue that the retirement plans’ fees were excessive and should have been barred under ERISA. However, the 2nd Circuit Court’s dismissal adds to the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of the law.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Split Among Federal Courts: A Key Issue for the Supreme Court

A central issue in the Cornell case is the differing interpretations of ERISA by federal appeals courts. Some courts, including the 2nd Circuit, have ruled that plaintiffs must prove that an employer engaged in a prohibited transaction with the intent to benefit a third party, such as a recordkeeper. In contrast, at least two other appeals courts have held that plaintiffs only need to allege the occurrence of a prohibited transaction to proceed with their claims.

Plaintiffs’ Argument to the Supreme Court

In their petition to the Supreme Court, the Cornell plaintiffs argued that the 2nd Circuit had wrongly placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to disprove any exemptions from liability. The plaintiffs assert that it should be the defendants’ responsibility to demonstrate that their actions were exempt under ERISA. The case could set an important precedent for similar lawsuits, including those involving excessive fees or mismanagement of retirement plans.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Broader Impact of the Case

This lawsuit is part of a larger wave of ERISA-related claims filed against universities and colleges, which began around 2016. These lawsuits accuse institutions of failing to properly oversee retirement plans, including not dropping underperforming investments or limiting fees. Similar cases have been settled by universities like Duke, Columbia, and the University of Southern California, with settlements reaching up to $13 million, though the universities denied any wrongdoing.

Previous Supreme Court Ruling on ERISA

In a related case in 2022, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that offering a broad range of investment options in retirement plans does not protect employers from claims of imprudence, especially when certain investment options carry high fees. This decision, involving Northwestern University, underscores the court’s attention to how ERISA is applied in managing retirement benefits.

Looking Ahead

The case, Cunningham v. Cornell University, is now set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 23-1007). The outcome could bring much-needed clarity on the standards for evaluating prohibited transactions under ERISA. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs and Cornell will present their arguments, and the case is expected to have implications for future lawsuits involving retirement plan management.

This legal battle is part of the ongoing scrutiny over how retirement plans are administered, especially in educational institutions. A ruling by the Supreme Court could have a profound impact on employee benefit plan litigation and the financial responsibilities of universities and other large employers.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post U.S. Supreme Court to Resolve Legal Dispute on Employee Benefit Plans first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A recent lawsuit filed by a conservative group accuses Northwestern University’s Law School of discriminatory hiring practices, favoring women and people of color over more qualified white male candidates.

The Allegations

The complaint, brought to federal court by the group “Faculty, Alumni and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences,” asserts that Northwestern’s Law School has violated anti-discrimination laws. The suit claims that the prestigious institution has been prioritizing the hiring of women and people of color over white men, regardless of the latter’s superior qualifications.

Key Figures Named in the Lawsuit

The lawsuit names several individuals, including Dean Hari Osofsky, law professors Sarah Lawsky, Janice Nadler, and Daniel Rodriguez, as well as Law Review Editor in Chief Dheven Unni and Senior Equity and Inclusion Editor Jazmyne Denman. These individuals are accused of perpetuating what the plaintiffs describe as a “cesspool of corruption and lawlessness” in the school’s hiring practices.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Specific Claims of Discriminatory Practices

According to Chris Hilton of Stone & Hilton, the plaintiff’s attorney, the law school has consistently overlooked qualified white male candidates in favor of women and minorities. The 30-page lawsuit details these allegations, citing examples of hires with allegedly inferior qualifications, including one professor who graduated near the bottom of her class.

Broader Implications and Expected Legal Actions

This lawsuit is anticipated to be the first in a series of similar legal actions against higher education institutions. The complaint argues that hiring based on race and gender quotas is a violation of federal law. Hilton emphasizes that employment decisions should be based on merit, not race or gender.

Northwestern’s Response

In response to the lawsuit, Northwestern University has issued a statement defending its practices. Jon Yates, a spokesperson for the university, stated, “Northwestern Pritzker School of Law is among the top law schools in the country, and we are proud of their outstanding faculty. We intend to vigorously defend this case.”

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

The Broader Context

This lawsuit comes amid growing scrutiny of affirmative action and diversity policies in higher education. It highlights the tension between efforts to promote diversity and the legal challenges these policies can face.

Looking Ahead

Attorneys for the plaintiffs hope that the alleged discriminatory practices at Northwestern will be addressed before the case potentially reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for hiring practices in academia nationwide.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Lawsuit Alleges Discrimination at Northwestern University's Law School first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Striking Similarities with Alex Jones

Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor and prominent figure in the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. This move mirrors the situation of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who recently discovered that bankruptcy doesn’t guarantee relief from defamation-related debts.

Giuliani Faces $148 Million Defamation Judgments

Giuliani’s bankruptcy stems from $148 million in judgments resulting from his discredited campaign to challenge the 2020 election results. While bankruptcy offers a temporary respite from debt collection efforts, recent developments in Alex Jones’ Chapter 11 case suggest that discharging damages labeled as “willful and malicious injury” is a complex challenge.

Lessons from Alex Jones’ Bankruptcy

Jones, the host of Infowars, faced a similar situation when a bankruptcy judge ruled that he couldn’t use bankruptcy to escape a $1.1 billion obligation to the Sandy Hook massacre victims’ families. Giuliani will likely encounter comparable obstacles in his attempt to discharge defamation-related debts.

Breathing Room Amid Legal Battles

Giuliani’s bankruptcy filing followed a decision by Judge Beryl A. Howell to allow the immediate pursuit of his assets by Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, who secured a jury-ordered $148 million in judgments. While the bankruptcy delays payouts to creditors, it also incurs potential additional costs for them.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Legal Protection Despite Possible Victory for Poll Workers

Even if Freeman and Moss prevail, Giuliani gains significant legal protection during bankruptcy. This delay may prompt creditors to challenge the discharge of defamation debts or question the good faith behind Giuliani’s Chapter 11 filing.

Complex Landscape: Defamation Debts and Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy courts often find it challenging to discharge defamation-related debts, a situation prevalent in both Jones and Giuliani’s cases. The analysis determines whether the judgment aligns with federal bankruptcy law’s “willful and malicious” standard for rejecting debt discharges.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Giuliani’s Defamation Debt: A Detailed Look

Freeman and Moss allege that Giuliani’s willful and malicious conduct defamed them, leading to a default judgment against him. While Giuliani could argue that a jury, not a default judgment, should decide the intent and malice, he faces the precedent set in Jones’ case, where a similar argument was dismissed.

Informative Insights from Jones’ Bankruptcy

Despite the different jurisdictions, Jones’ bankruptcy provides insights into Giuliani’s case. The default judgment, akin to a jury verdict on liability, suggests that lacking a jury finding on intent and malice may not impact dischargeability.

Key Issue: Meeting the “Willful and Malicious” Test

Giuliani’s judgment includes language satisfying bankruptcy’s “willful and malicious” conduct requirement, indicating intentional and malicious actions causing severe emotional distress to the poll workers. The critical question remains whether these facts meet the federal law’s “willful and malicious” test.

Conclusion: Facing the Reality of Legal Challenges

As Giuliani navigates the bankruptcy process, the parallels with Jones’ case highlight the complexity of discharging defamation-related debts. The outcome may depend on whether the facts align with federal law’s stringent “willful and malicious” standard.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Giuliani’s Bankruptcy Echoes Alex Jones’ Legal Woes: Defamation Debts Linger first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Allegations of Concealment and Misconduct in Delaware Patent Cases

In a significant development, U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly has referred Texas-based patent monetization firm IP Edge and its legal representatives to various authorities, urging investigations into their conduct regarding a series of patent cases in Delaware.

Concealed Ownership and Violations of Professional Conduct Rules

Judge Connolly revealed that patent plaintiffs Nimitz Technologies, Mellaconic, and Lamplight Licensing, all backed by IP Edge, concealed that IP Edge was the “de facto” owner of the patents involved in the cases. Additionally, he asserted that the attorneys representing these plaintiffs violated professional conduct rules.

Undisclosed Monetary Interest and Call for DOJ Investigation

The judge also uncovered evidence suggesting that France Brevets, a government-owned investment fund that closed its operations last year, had an undisclosed monetary interest in the litigation. Consequently, he called upon the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether failing to disclose such interests and other relevant parties violated federal law.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Unauthorized Practice of Law and Potential Criminal Prosecution

Judge Connolly referred IP Edge attorneys to the Texas Supreme Court in a separate move, alleging they practiced law without proper authorization. This referral opens the possibility of criminal prosecution in the state.

Plaintiffs Dismiss Lawsuits Amid Technology Patent Coverage

The plaintiff companies, Nimitz Technologies, Mellaconic, and Lamplight Licensing, voluntarily dismissed their patent lawsuits last year. These lawsuits covered a spectrum of technology related to computers and cell phones.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Denials and Neutral Consideration

George Pazuniak of O’Kelly & O’Rourke, the representative for Nimitz, maintained that the plaintiffs’ attorneys had not engaged in any wrongdoing or unprofessional conduct. He expressed relief that the issues were now being transferred to neutral bodies for impartial consideration.

Silence from IP Edge and Defendant Representatives

Despite the gravity of the allegations, representatives for IP Edge, including attorneys Jimmy Chong and Andrew Curfman representing Mellaconic and Lamplight, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Similarly, defendants such as BuzzFeed and Bloomberg, named in the lawsuits, refrained from commenting.

Shell Companies and Allegations of Loyalty Breach

In his statement, Judge Connolly characterized the plaintiff companies as “relatively unsophisticated” shell entities created to shield IP Edge from liability. He asserted that the attorneys representing these companies breached their obligation of providing “undivided loyalty” to their clients, as their actions were driven by IP Edge’s interests rather than their clients.

Investigation into Potential Federal Law and PTO Violations

Emphasizing the seriousness of the situation, Judge Connolly referred the cases to the Justice Department and the Patent and Trademark Office for investigations into whether IP Edge violated federal law or PTO rules by making false statements to a federal agency.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post U.S. District Judge Refers Patent Monetization Firm IP Edge and Attorneys for Investigation first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The Issue at Hand

At the heart of these lawsuits is the segment of an employee’s 401(k) account funded by their employer’s contributions. Unlike contributions from an employee’s salary, which are immediately vested, employer contributions can remain unvested for a certain period. They can be partially or entirely forfeited when an employee departs from the company after a few months or years.

The crux of the matter is that these lawsuits contend that employers run afoul of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when they use their discretion over these forfeitures to benefit themselves instead of the workers. It is alleged that these companies have utilized these forfeitures to reduce their financial obligations to the retirement plans rather than allocating these funds to reduce the administrative expenses employees incur.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

It’s noteworthy that the practice of using 401(k) forfeitures to offset employer contributions has been approved by regulators when executed correctly, according to legal experts interviewed by Bloomberg Law. However, this practice has come under scrutiny due to four recent cases initiated by Hayes Pawlenko LLP, a small employment law firm based in California.

The Role of Plan Terms

As with many ERISA disputes, the outcome may largely hinge on the language articulated in the specific plan documents. Numerous 401(k) plans outline how forfeited money should be utilized, whether for covering administrative costs or directing it toward employer contributions. Some documents offer detailed instructions on the matter, while others are more ambiguous and grant a level of discretion.

The legal complaints against Qualcomm, Intuit, Clorox, and Thermo Fisher each argue that the pertinent plan documents bestow discretion upon employers to decide whether forfeitures should be allocated to expenses or contributions. Legal experts emphasize the significance of this particular detail in the cases.

The fact that these companies appear to be acting within the parameters set by their plans might pose a considerable obstacle for the plaintiffs. It remains to be seen if this use of forfeitures is genuinely a violation of ERISA, as indicated by Alex C. Lakatos, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP in Washington.

Fiduciary Obligations Under Scrutiny

ERISA mandates that plan fiduciaries act in the best interests of their participants. The lawsuits posit that if a fiduciary chooses to use funds to lower participants’ expenses instead of its own, it breaches its duties.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

However, some experts argue employers aren’t obligated to provide retirement plans or specific compensation levels within legal limits. Decisions regarding benefit levels are primarily questions of plan design rather than fiduciary actions.

The flexibility given to employers in utilizing plan forfeitures doesn’t necessarily signify that they are acting in a fiduciary capacity under ERISA. Guidance from the Internal Revenue Service underscores that employers have discretion concerning these forfeitures.

While some experts express skepticism about the success of these cases, others contend that the legal theory advanced in these lawsuits could be viable if specific conditions are met. According to Brock J. Specht, a partner at Nichols Kaster PLLP in Minneapolis, a fiduciary’s primary duty is to use the money in the participants’ interest, not for the employer’s benefit.

What’s Next?

The world of class litigation under ERISA often follows patterns. Recent cases have targeted various aspects of retirement plans, including those sponsored by universities, those offering specific investment options, and pension plans utilizing outdated life expectancy data. As more cases arise under particular statutes, smaller law firms may take the opportunity to file similar cases, potentially leading to the emergence of novel legal theories.

Plaintiffs’ firms are incentivized to uncover common practices that may not adhere to legal standards, potentially fueling a new wave of litigation. If a widespread practice is deemed improper by a court, it could herald the “next era” of litigation, according to experts in the field.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Lawsuits Question 401(k) Handling: Possible Violation of Federal Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Jeremy Pauley’s Admission

Pauley admitted his involvement in the illicit trade of stolen human remains, acknowledging that he knowingly purchased such remains from multiple individuals who acquired them through theft. Moreover, he confessed to reselling these stolen remains to others, at least one of whom was aware of their illicit origin.

Get ahead of the competition by submitting your resume to LawCrossing – don’t wait any longer!

Co-conspirators and Their Activities

Several other individuals were previously indicted on charges related to this conspiracy and interstate transport of stolen property:

1. Cedric Lodge, aged 55, who managed the morgue for the Anatomical Gifts Program at Harvard Medical School, was implicated in stealing organs and body parts from corpses donated for medical research and education. He then transported these stolen remains from Boston to his residence in Goffstown, New Hampshire, along with his wife, Denise Lodge, who was also involved in the sale of the stolen remains. These illicit transactions often occur through cellular phone communication and social media websites.
2. Katrina Maclean and Joshua Taylor, among others, were recipients of the stolen remains and allegedly sold them for profit, including to Jeremy Pauley in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
3. Candace Chapman Scott, an employee at a Little Rock, Arkansas, mortuary and crematorium, was indicted for stealing cadaver parts she was supposed to cremate. She also stole the corpses of two stillborn babies intended for cremation and sale as cremains to their families. Scott’s stolen remains found their way to Pauley in Pennsylvania.
4. Matthew Lampi was another individual involved in the trade of stolen human remains, engaging in transactions with Pauley and exchanging over $100,000 in online payments.

Busy schedule? No problem. Subscribe to JDJournal for bite-sized legal news updates that fit your on-the-go lifestyle.

Ongoing Legal Proceedings

Those charged in connection with this investigation are currently awaiting trial:

• Cedric Lodge, Goffstown, New Hampshire (age 55)
• Katrina Maclean, Salem, Massachusetts (age 44)
• Joshua Taylor, West Lawn, Pennsylvania (age 46)
• Denise Lodge, Goffstown, New Hampshire (age 63)
• Mathew Lampi, East Bethel, Minnesota (age 52)

Candace Chapman-Scott has also been indicted in federal court in the District of Arkansas for her involvement in the conspiracy and defrauding her employer.

Legal Consequences

The maximum penalty under federal law for the offenses in question is 15 years of imprisonment, supervised release, and fines. Sentencing will be determined by the presiding judge, considering federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Federal Guilty Plea in Multi-State Conspiracy to Traffic Stolen Human Remains first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The Iowa Senate easily passed a bill that would allow for medical marijuana to be legal in the state but must now face the House.

The Iowa Senate had no problem passing a bill legalizing medical marijuana but it is not expected to receive such support in the House. The bill would allow the use of marijuana for a wide range of medical treatments for conditions such as cancer to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The bill, Senate File 506, was passed by a whopping 45-5 vote. If the bill passes completely, it would give patients the ability to obtain a medical cannabis registration card after first getting written approval from a doctor. The card would allow the patient to then visit a dispensary in Iowa to obtain the drug. The production and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes would be legalized in the state and reclassify the weed as legal under state law.

Senator Thomas Greene, a pharmacist, acted as the bill’s floor manager. He urged support for the bill, explaining how many Iowans face the decision of obtaining marijuana illegally or moving to another state where it is legal. They estimate over 12,000 of the state’s citizens have medical conditions that would benefit with the treatment of marijuana. Greene said, “We want Iowans to know we care about them here.”

Senator Joe Bolkcom recounted stories from those that lobbied legislators to support the bill, some of who has since passed away. Senator Charles Schneider joined in support, saying it would be easier if the federal government legalized it but since they haven’t, each state has to figure out their own laws to address the issue. He added, “In the end, I think this bill strikes the right balance.” The bill would not allow the smoking of marijuana or for people to buy plant material to be taken home and smoked.

Medical conditions that have been shown benefit from marijuana as a treatment and that will be included in the bill as being eligible are: cancer, epilepsy, AIDS or HIV, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, post-traumatic stress disorder, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Chron’s disease or ulcerative colitis, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Tourette’s syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophy, Huntington’s disease, intractable pain, complex regional pain syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, any terminal disease subject to certain conditions, and any other chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition, including those approved by state officials.

The biggest obstacle the bill faces now is approval from the House. Linda Upmeyer, the House Speaker, has mentioned that she is not opposed to allowing marijuana to be grown in Iowa or distributed as a medicinal product. Upmeyer and other members are concerned with the economic viability plus any implications under federal law. There is still a bill in the House that would extend the sunset date of the current cannabis oil program and make Epidiolex, a cannabis-based product, available upon its approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

Rep. Jarad Klein has helped to lead the drafting of medical marijuana legislation in the House. He agrees with Upmeyer, explaining that House Republicans are more in favor of a limited approach compared to the bill that just went through the Senate. Klein wants to avoid a minimally regulated system that allows anyone to claim an illness for access to medical marijuana.

Senator Brad Zaun said, “A lot of people say, ‘Why is this taking so long?’ Well, the reason why is education. A lot of us have learned about the benefits of cannabis. I beg our House colleagues to do the right thing.”

Current law in Iowa allows those that suffer from epilepsy to use cannabis oil. However, it is illegal to manufacture or distribute the oil and federal law prohibits the transportation of it across state lines. So, in a sense, it is illegal for anyone to obtain the oil. The law, which was enacted in 2014, will expire in July.

Do you think the federal government should allow for medical marijuana to be legal? Tell us in the comments below.

To learn more about medical marijuana laws, read these articles:

• Medical Marijuana Now Legal in Minnesota
• Texas Moving Towards Allowing Medical Marijuana
• Which Celebs Are Making Money off of Medical Marijuana?

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org

The post Medical Marijuana Cruises through Iowa Senate first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: California joins four other states and the District of Columbia to legalize recreational marijuana use.

Proposition 64 was approved by voters Tuesday. The measure makes California the most populated state in the country to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Just six years ago California narrowly rejected a similar measure.

Executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Assn. Nate Bradley said, “We are very excited that citizens of California voted to end the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. Proposition 64 will allow California to take its rightful place as the center of cannabis innovation, research and development.”

Law enforcement officials are not as pleased with the passage for fear of the misuse it may pose by the public. Chief Ken Corney said, “We, of course, disappointed that the self-serving moneyed interest behind this marijuana business plan prevailed at the cost of public health, safety, and the wellbeing of our communities.”

See Tougher “Stoned Driving” Rule to Stay in Washington.

He added, “We will take a thorough look at the flaws in Proposition 64 that will negatively impact public health and safety, such as the initiative’s substandard advertising restrictions and lack of prosecutorial tools for driving under the influence of marijuana, and begin to develop legislative solutions.”

Proposition 64 allows Californians, 21 and older, to transport, possess, buy, and use up to 1 ounce of marijuana for recreational use as well as grow up to six plants. A 15 percent tax will be imposed at retail marijuana shops.

Twenty years ago California paved the way for the legalization of marijuana by making it legal for medical use. Medical use is also legal in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Four states were voting on medical use this year – North Dakota, Florida, Arkansas, and Montana.

Recreational use is legal in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Four other states were voting on legalizing recreational marijuana – Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Arizona. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

Read DOJ Says It Won’t Go After State Marijuana Laws for Recreational Use.

Do you think marijuana should be legal? Tell us in the comments below.

To learn more about recreational marijuana, read Ohio Not Ready for Medical or Recreational Marijuana.

Photo: flickr.com

The post California Legalizes Marijuana for Recreational Use first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: A bill that has successfully gone through the House and Senate just awaits Obama’s signature to remove dated minority terms from federal law.

President Barack Obama will be seeing a bill on his desk to remove all remaining dated references to minorities such as “Negro” and “Oriental.” Congress passed the legislation unanimously Monday night.

Rep. Grace Meng of New York developed the bill, which went through the House without issue in February. The proposed law will exchange the word “Oriental” with “Asian American” in two sections of the U.S. code. Any remaining references to “Negro” will also be replaced with “African American.”

Read Upcoming Court Term Full of Issues Ripe for a Right Sweep to learn more.

Meng said, “I thank my colleagues in the House and Senate for understanding that the time has come for our government to no longer refer to Asian Americans – or any ethnicity – in such an insulting manner. Repealing this term is long overdue. ‘Oriental’ no longer deserves a place in federal law, and very shortly it will finally be a thing of the past.”

Two specific lines of the U.S. code written in the 1970s attempt to define minorities are the issue. In the sections establishing the Department of Energy, a sentence describing minorities in regards to the Office of Minority Economic Impact says, “a Negro, Puerto Rican, American Indian, Eskimo, Oriental, or Aleut or is a Spanish speaking individual of Spanish descent.”

See VIDEO: Is “Obama Phone” Racist?

Another reference to the dated terms is a line in the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act is from the part over minority business enterprises. The line states, “Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.”

The bill will also add “Native Hawaiian” and “Pacific Islander” to the description of minorities list. “Spanish-speaking” will now be “Hispanic” and “Eskimo” and “Aleut” will be “Alaska Natives” with “Indian” changing to “Native American.”

Read How Minorities Can Select the Best Law School for Their Future.

Meng first took on replacing dated minority references when she was a member of the New York state assembly in 2009. She co-authored legislation that removed “Oriental” from official New York state documents.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/279362-congress-sends-bill-eliminating-oriental-and-negro-from-law-to-obama

Photo: huffingtonpost.com

The post Dated Minority References Removed from Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: No laws or funding options currently exist for schools to get the necessary testing done on water sources in the schools to protect students.

After the reality of lead being present in water gathered attention from the crisis in Flint, Michigan, cities and states across the country are testing their water for lead levels. Schools are one place where lead does not have to be tested for.

Exposure to high levels of lead is known to cause brain damage and development problems such as impulsive behavior and a lack of language skills. Schools are not required under federal law to test their water that comes from the tap and drinking fountains or report the findings to parents when problems are found. In the past 15 years, lead has been found in the school water in the districts of Baltimore, the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, and Seattle.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York has introduced legislation to change this lack of testing. The legislation will create $100 million in grants to help schools test drinking water. As Schumer explains, “Right now there is a yawning gap in our lead-testing protocols. It’s disturbing that Flint may have been just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to toxic lead in our kids’ drinking water.”

Read $150 Million Class Action Filed against Flint, Michigan to learn more about the crisis in Flint.

New York discovered that schools in Ithaca had high levels of lead in two buildings, resulting in the schools handing out bottled water to students. One of the classrooms had lead levels of 5,000 parts per billion, hundreds of times higher than the level where the federal government requires action.

Federal law only requires schools that gain their own water through wells to test water every three years. Ithaca discovered their problem because of this but parents weren’t told of the problem until six months later. One suggestion for older schools built before 1986 is to install lead filters on water fountains and taps. For newer schools built between 1986 and 2014, it is unclear what is needed to protect kids.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/03/18/a-legal-loophole-might-be-exposing-children-to-lead-in-the-nations-schools/

Photo: news.mercersburg.edu

The post Schools Nationwide at Risk for High Lead Levels first appeared on JDJournal Blog.