Article

NYLJ Publishes “The Middle Finger and the Constitution” by ECBAWM Partner Ilann Maazel

In “The Middle Finger and the Constitution,” his most recent column for the New York Law Journal, ECBAWM partner Ilann Maazel unpacks the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Radwan v. Manuel.

Noriana Radwan was a soccer player at the University of Connecticut (UConn) when, during a post-game celebration, she raised her middle finger to a television camera. Although she apologized, UConn canceled her athletic scholarship. Radwan sued, alleging First Amendment, Due Process, and Title IX claims. The district court dismissed all of Radwan’s claims on summary judgment.

On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed issues of free speech, qualified immunity, procedural due process, and sex discrimination. In his column, Maazel explains the Court’s reasoning and how it arrived at its conclusion that Radwan’s case may proceed to trial to resolve the factual question of whether there are “sufficiently similar” incidents with male athletes that would support a claim of sex discrimination under Title IX.

Maazel also questions the repercussions of the Court’s ruling. “Whatever happens to Radwan’s case, however, Radwan leaves us in First Amendment stasis and a familiar qualified immunity quagmire,” he writes. “We can only hope that Congress or the Supreme Court will one day let plaintiffs hold public officials accountable when they break the law, clearly established or not.”

Article

NYLJ Publishes Criminal Justice System Article by ECBAWM Partner Ilann M. Maazel

In “Criminal Injustice in New York State,” his most recent column for the New York Law Journal, ECBAWM partner Ilann M. Maazel provides insights into the New York state criminal justice system based on his work over the past seven years with clients seeking post-conviction relief. “From the perspective of this civil rights lawyer, the picture is not pretty,” writes Maazel. He explains that factors like minimal accountability for prosecutors, the erosion of the reasonable doubt standard, and sweeping grand jury immunity, among others, contribute to “serious, systemic problems that require systemic reform.”

Article

USA TODAY Publishes Selective Service Reform Article by ECBAWM Partner Ilann Maazel

In his latest column for USA TODAY, “Men-only military draft is a vestige of anti-women bias. Supreme Court should strike it down,” ECBAWM partner and civil rights attorney Ilann Maazel explores the United States’ current Selective Service law and the reasons it needs to change.

“The Military Selective Service Act discriminates against men, by imposing obligations, burdens and penalties that only men face,” writes Maazel. “The law discriminates against women by treating them as less than full citizens, conveying that women are less willing and able to defend the country, and perpetuating paternalistic stereotypes that, as Justice William Brennan once put it, ‘put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage.’”

Maazel also notes that the law undermines military preparedness by depriving the military of “half the talent and ability of the population.” “[W]e cannot achieve equality while federal law makes men soldiers and women partial citizens.”

Article

ECBAWM Partner Ilann Maazel’s Analysis of Recent NYS Police Reform Legislative Actions Published by the New York Law Journal

In his most recent column for the New York Law Journal, ECBAWM partner Ilann Maazel analyzes recent actions taken by the New York State legislature in the wake of protests against police brutality and a growing awareness of systemic racism. Evaluating the potential impacts of the repeal of Section 50-a of the New York Civil Rights Law (shielding police disciplinary records from disclosure), the “chokehold ban,” the new right to record the police in public, the “Amy Cooper” law creating civil liability for the summoning of police in certain circumstances, and other actions, Maazel writes, “The New York State legislature has taken (mostly) positive action. But there is still much work to do.”

You can read the full article here.

Article

Dan Kornstein Published in the New York Law Journal

In “O.W. Holmes Jr. and #MeToo,” ECBAWM partner and New York Law Journal occasional essayist Daniel J. Kornstein writes: “Holmes should be a hero, as yet unsung, of the #MeToo movement. He is sensitive and aware of the embarrassment and shame felt by a victim of sexual assault. He provides new support for any victim criticized for not reporting an incident sooner. Holmes’s comments should be cited in any brief on the point.”

Article

ECBAWM Attorneys Published in The New York Times, “Another Venue for Sexual Harassment Claims”

Zoe Salzman, Elizabeth Saylor, and Alanna Kaufman’s Letter to the Editor, “Another Venue for Sexual Harassment Claims,” was published in The New York Times on October 31, 2017. In the letter, the attorneys advise victims of workplace sexual harassment to speak out and bring their case to the  New York City Commission on Human Rights.  Salzman, Saylor, and Kaufman specialize in the representation of victims of sexual harassment.

 

Article

ECBAWM Founder Richard Emery’s Column on Judges Using Their Office for Private Interests

This week, the New York Law Journal published a two-part column by ECBAWM Founder Richard Emery addressing the persistent issue of judges who use the power and prestige of their office to benefit themselves and others.

In part one, Emery discusses the problematic trend of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s decisions on this matter. In his review of recent cases, Emery demonstrates the Commissions’ troubling leniency in disciplining judges using their office for personal benefit. He argues that this inability to properly address and punish this misconduct not only sets a dangerous precedent for judges but also damages public perceptions of judicial integrity.

In part two, Emery focuses on precedents set by the Court of Appeals in judicial discipline cases. Tracing precedents set in recent decades, Emery ends his review with an encouraging analysis of the Matter of Ayres, a case from this month that signals the Court of Appeals’ increasing lack of tolerance for judge misconduct that threatens the public’s confidence in the judiciary. The decision bolsters Emery’s view that despite the need for some constraints on the investigation and discipline of judges, these individuals must still be bound to the strictest standards of conduct.

.