ReportWire

Tag: discrimination

  • A top detective alleges the LAPD is toxic toward women. Will her lawsuit bring change?

    A top detective alleges the LAPD is toxic toward women. Will her lawsuit bring change?

    [ad_1]

    Even as a young street cop trying to work her way up the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department in the mid-90s, Kristine Klotz says she was quick to call out sexism on the job. Right is right and wrong is wrong, she used to tell herself, knowing that she would ruffle some feathers in the process.

    So she didn’t hesitate to speak up last summer when she learned that a male supervisor in the vaunted Robbery-Homicide Division where she worked had allegedly compared female detectives to sex workers on Figueroa Street.

    To make it in the LAPD, department veterans say, you need a thick skin. But Klotz, 54, alleges the Figueroa comments were just the tip of an iceberg of verbal abuse women in the unit faced.

    Klotz said that after repeated complaints about her mistreatment at the hands of department officials went ignored, she and another female Robbery-Homicide detective reached out for help from the Board of Police Commissioners, the LAPD’s civilian oversight body. For weeks, they heard nothing.

    A response eventually came, just not the one Klotz expected.

    In a whistleblower lawsuit filed this year in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Klotz claims the LAPD retaliated against her. She alleges she was demoted, reassigned and put under internal investigation in the span of a few months.

    The lawsuit accuses several current senior LAPD officials, including Deputy Chief Marc Reina, and Capts. Scot Williams and Robin Petillo of inflicting emotional distress and creating a hostile work environment. The suit names two women, Petillo and Lt. Blanca Lopez; the rest of the defendants are men. A follow-up letter to the Police Commission names the supervising detective who allegedly made the Figueroa comments, Christopher Marsden.

    Emails from The Times to the work accounts of the officials singled out in the suit went unreturned.

    The LAPD said it doesn’t discuss pending litigation and referred questions to the city attorney’s office, which didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. A private law firm that is representing the defendants, including the city, has asked a judge for more time before responding to Klotz’s suit in court.

    A 29-year department veteran with a long list of high-profile criminal investigations to her name, Klotz said she had no choice but to turn to the court system while fighting to restore both her career and reputation. The months-long ordeal, she said, “opened my eyes to a completely different way of thinking when there was so much pride I had in this organization.”

    Tackling persistent sexual harassment complaints will be among the pressing issues facing incoming LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, who was appointed to the job this month, pending City Council approval. He will also be expected to overhaul a disciplinary system that some argue seems to penalize the accuser more than the accused.

    Since 2019, the city of Los Angeles has paid out at least $11 million in damages for cases of discrimination, retaliation and other workplace strife based on gender brought by LAPD officers, according to a Times review of data obtained through a public records request. That figure doesn’t include at least $12 million in damages awarded by juries to women at the LAPD that the city is appealing after having been defeated in court.

    In addition, a dozen or so cases involving complaints by female officers about harassment and discrimination are pending. Several claims have previously gone unreported, including a sergeant who says she was denied a transfer in “direct retaliation” for cooperating with an Internal Affairs investigation into a former assistant chief accused of planting a tracking device on the car of his former domestic partner, a fellow LAPD officer.

    In another case, an auto theft detective says she was tormented by a male colleague after their relationship fell apart. And in the Hollenbeck Division, which has seen investigations and leadership changes in recent months, several sworn and civilian female employees alleged they faced retaliation for reporting misconduct.

    While some longtime LAPD observers argue that decades of damning reports and court orders have forced the department to confront the problem, others, including civil rights attorney Connie Rice, say a crude, misogynistic culture still exists and women in uniform continue to face obstacles to advancement.

    Much of the abuse has moved online to pro-LAPD social media groups that feature a “frat-boy sort of MAGA misogyny thing going on,” she said.

    “I think that the DNA of the culture is still ‘Women shouldn’t be here,’” Rice said. “There’s not a welcome mat, it’s more like a no-trespassing mat.”

    Toward the end of her time at Robbery-Homicide, Klotz said, she felt as though she had a target on her back.

    Klotz contends that she was ordered to perform menial tasks and forced to check in whenever she left the office, much like a high-schooler requesting a hall pass. If she stepped away to rinse out her coffee mug or use the copier, she said, her supervisor would text her demanding to know where she was. Then one day last summer, she showed up to work to find that her keycard access had been revoked.

    Determined not to take the humiliation “sitting down,” Klotz and a colleague, Det. Jennifer Hammer, wrote a letter to the Police Commission in September 2023 asking it to intervene in “the recent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation she and other female officers had endured.”

    “The misconduct has not stopped and has increasingly worsened,” the letter said. Hammer has filed her own complaint against the department.

    Klotz has been the subject of at least two internal investigations. She says the complaints against her — one for allegedly making an inappropriate gesture to another officer and the other for accosting a civilian employee — were “fabricated” as a way of punishing her for speaking out.

    In January, she was demoted to a lower-ranking detective position, sent to an auto theft unit in the San Fernando Valley. She took an 18% pay cut and now reports to a younger detective previously under her command.

    Even after years on the job, Klotz has maintained her uncommonly cheerful manner. But her jaw clenches and voice thickens with emotion when she describes the humiliation she felt walking into the Van Nuys police station for the first time earlier this year, and feeling the stares from her colleagues.

    The last few months have taken a heavy mental toll, she said. She started smoking again, nearly a decade after quitting cold turkey. More than once, she said, she has broken down and cried in her car outside of work.

    “I didn’t think at the end of my career I would be subjected to the ongoing harassment, the retaliation that I have endured by upper management and command officers,” Klotz said.

    Growing up in Long Beach on a steady diet of “Charlie’s Angels” reruns, Klotz dreamed of going into law enforcement from an early age. A high school class on courts and the law further piqued her interest. She said she had job opportunities at other area departments in her early 20s, but she held out for an offer from the LAPD.

    Her dream was always to work her way up to detective, preferably investigating murders. She eventually achieved her goal, joining a Valley-area homicide unit. That led to her first encounter with what she alleges is a toxic culture.

    Before blowing the whistle at Robbery-Homicide, Klotz was among a group of female detectives who sued over what they described as a frat-like atmosphere in the Valley, where some male colleagues were vulgar and abusive toward women in the office.

    Klotz and other women said they were routinely referred to as “tourists” who didn’t belong. One male detective allegedly boasted of sexual exploits with the wife of a now-deputy chief and was accused of sending an inappropriate email from his work account to a female Los Angeles County deputy district attorney.

    The city has denied the allegations raised in the suit, which remains under litigation.

    Klotz said the experience in that case taught her to document everything, including the numerous pleading emails she sent to department higher-ups asking them to intervene at Robbery-Homicide.

    Like other women who have reported misconduct, she said she has mostly learned to tune out the office gossip and rumors about her demotion. Some of the grapevine talk has gotten back to her — how she’s a loose cannon or stirring the pot to cover up for complaints accusing her of misconduct.

    None of it is true, she says. And she’s not looking for a payday either, she says, rebutting another common criticism of department whistleblowers.

    Corinne Bendersky, a UCLA professor of management and organizations who studied work culture across city of Los Angeles departments, said the poor handling of complaints by women and ethnic minorities is not isolated to the LAPD.

    “Race relations are worse in the Police Department, gender relations are worse in the Fire Department,” said Bendersky, who performed surveys, focus groups and interviews with thousands of city employees. She said the surveys revealed strong resentment across gender and racial lines toward the Police Department’s ongoing efforts to hire more women and officers of color.

    Klotz said the department conducted investigations into her complaints and deemed them unfounded, despite evidence she presented that she was the subject of retaliation for reporting misconduct committed by higher-ups.

    Last week — after The Times inquired about her case — Klotz was summoned to a meeting with Deputy Chief Emada Tingirides. Klotz says she was informed that she was being returned to her previous detective rank, which restores her pay. She remains stationed in the Valley, investigating car thefts.

    She is planning to retire at the end of the year, but Klotz said she will continue to fight in court to bring accountability after years of the LAPD failing to improve itself.

    “The damage is done, they have harmed me and they can never take it back. They will never be able to repair me,” she said before her old rank was restored. “They’ve ruined me at the end of my career.”

    [ad_2]

    Libor Jany

    Source link

  • Video: How Palestinians Are Roadblocked in the West Bank

    Video: How Palestinians Are Roadblocked in the West Bank

    [ad_1]

    Driving in the Israeli-occupied West Bank is an incredibly different experience depending on who you are. Ben Hubbard, international correspondent for The New York Times, rode along on two bus trips, one for Israelis, the other for Palestinians, that tell a story of separate and unequal roadways.

    [ad_2]

    Ben Hubbard, Rebecca Suner and James Surdam

    Source link

  • Investigation finds widespread discrimination against Section 8 tenants in California

    Investigation finds widespread discrimination against Section 8 tenants in California

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — California tenants who held Section 8 housing vouchers were refused rental contracts by more than 200 landlords, including major real estate firms, according to an undercover investigation that found widespread discrimination in the state.

    The investigative nonprofit Housing Rights Initiative announced Tuesday that it has filed complaints with the California Civil Rights Department, alleging landlords violated a state law against denying leases to renters who pay with vouchers. It seeks penalties against 203 companies and individuals.

    The nonprofit is also pushing for more state funding to adequately enforce the law, which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed in 2019.

    “This historic filing serves as an opportunity for the Governor and his housing enforcement agency to enforce the very bill he signed into law and hold violators accountable,” the Housing Rights Initiative said in a statement.

    Newsom’s office referred comment on the filing to the state Civil Rights Department. Rishi Khalsa, a department spokesperson, said the agency is “deeply committed to using the tools at its disposal to combat discrimination in housing.” The department has reached more than 200 settlements related to similar discrimination in recent years, Khalsa said.

    “We always welcome additional support to strengthen enforcement of civil rights and we continue to work with a range of partners in those efforts,” he said in an email Tuesday.

    The goal of the Section 8 program, named for a component of the federal Housing Act, is to keep rental properties affordable and prevent homelessness, which has reached crisis levels in California. Under the program, which has a long waiting list, tenants typically pay about 30% of their income on rent, with the voucher covering the rest.

    Over the course of a year, undercover investigators posing as prospective tenants reached out via text messages to landlords, property managers and real estate agents to determine compliance with California’s fair housing laws. The investigation found voucher holders were explicitly discriminated against 44% of the time in San Francisco. Voucher denials took place in 53% of cases in Oakland, 58% in San Jose, and 70% in Los Angeles.

    In one text message exchange, an agent with EXP Realty, a national brokerage firm, tells an investigator posing as a prospective tenant that utilities are included in the monthly rate for a rental unit. When informed that the tenant has a Section 8 voucher, the agent responds, “I don’t work with that program,” according to the investigation.

    In another exchange, a broker with Sotheby’s International Realty replies to an investigator posing as a hopeful renter, “Oh sorry, owner not accepting Section 8.”

    Representatives for EXP and Sotheby’s didn’t immediately respond Tuesday to emails seeking comment on the claims.

    Kate Liggett, program director of Housing Rights Initiative, estimates the filing represents just a fraction of discrimination against Section 8 tenants in California.

    “By exposing this widespread and harmful practice, we call on the State to provide agencies like the California Civil Rights Department with the resources they need to eradicate voucher discrimination once and for all,” Liggett said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Equality California celebrates 25 years of championing LGBTQ+ rights

    Equality California celebrates 25 years of championing LGBTQ+ rights

    [ad_1]

    Ysabel Jurado, 34, a lifelong community member of Highland Park, and openly out candidate, is running against current Councilmember Kevin De Leon for Council District 14, the most powerful city council in Los Angeles County. 

    Her campaign slogan is ‘Ysabel For The Community.’

    Earlier this year, Jurado made history in the primary, using her perspective as a historically underrepresented person in the hopes of bringing new leadership to the district after De Leon was called to resign in 2022, following a scandal. 

    The live voting results earlier this year highlighted Ysabel Jurado at 24.52%, with 8,618 votes, while De Leon fell behind by nearly 400 votes, with 23.39% in the primary. 

    Jurado is a tenants rights lawyer and housing justice advocate from Highland Park who has built her reputation in the community with support from social activist Dolores Huerta,  L.A. City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez and L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis. 

    “I’m the daughter of undocumented immigrants, a public transit rider, a former teen mom, and a working class Angeleno who has navigated the challenges of poverty. I have held the line on countless strikes and defended truck drivers against the same wage theft my father faced,” said Jurado in her candidate statement.  

    De Leon secured the second spot and will go head-to-head against Jurado in November. Jurado rose to the top of the polls, while her opponents spent more money on their campaigns, including De Leon. Miguel Santiago raised the most money for his campaign and also spent the most to secure support. De Leon came in second with both money spent and money raised. While Jurado came in fourth in the amount of money spent and raised for her campaign. 

    Jurado is running to become the first queer, Filipina to represent CD-14. Among the list of issues she aims to tackle while in office are; homelessness, climate action, safer streets and economic justice that uplifts small businesses. 

    “I will bring the institutional knowledge of a legal housing expert and the lived experience of a queer, immigrant-raised, working class, woman of color – a battle-tested representative for and from the community,” said Jurado. 

    Though this is her first time running for office, she has already made it as far as political pioneer Gloria Molina in 2015. 

    De Leon might be facing an uphill climb after he was caught saying homophobic, racist and anti-sematic remarks in a leaked audio recording that rocked his political career. Even President Joe Biden called for his resignation. 

    The conversation that rocked L.A politics is said to have started because of redistricting plans and gerrymandering. According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, De Leon had his hopes set on running for mayor of Los Angeles. Since the audio was leaked, protests erupted, calling for his resignation. De Leon continued in his position after an apology tour and is now running against Jurado on the November ballot. 

    The recording of a conversation between De Leon, Ron Herrera, Nury Martinez and Gil Cedillo. 

    Jurado’s statement on her campaign website calls out the leaders of CD-14 that betrayed the communities in the district. 

    “Between FBI raids, backroom gerrymandering, racist rants, and corruption charges, our needs have been chronically ignored,” says the statement. “City government has failed us. We deserve better.”

    If she wins, she would join a progressive bloc of leaders in city council that include Nithya Raman, Hugo Doto-Martinez and Councilmember Hernandez. The leadership would have a pendulum swing toward city affairs that has not been seen before. 

    CD-14 covers Eagle Rock, El Sereno, Boyle Heights and parts of Lincoln Heights and downtown L.A., which includes skid row and other points of interest. 

    Those points of interest make CD-14 seats particularly difficult when it comes to dealing with polarizing issues like homelessness and street safety measures. 

    According to the latest demographic data by L.A City Council, 61% of the population is Latin American, while the second highest population is white, at 16%, followed by Asian, at 14% and Black at 6%. 

    If elected, Jurado aims to tackle homelessness in a district that has one of the highest unhoused populations in the city. 

    Jurado is now gearing up for the November election by continuing to campaign at various events across Los Angeles, including ‘Postcarding with Ysabel,’ at DTLA Arts District Brewing and The Hermosillo.

    [ad_2]

    Gisselle Palomera

    Source link

  • Federal court reviews civil rights lawsuit alleging environmental racism in a Louisiana parish

    Federal court reviews civil rights lawsuit alleging environmental racism in a Louisiana parish

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — A federal appellate court is reviewing a civil rights lawsuit alleging a south Louisiana parish engaged in racist land-use policies to place polluting industries in majority-Black communities.

    The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard oral arguments on Monday for a lawsuit filed by community groups claiming St. James Parish “intentionally discriminated against Black residents” by encouraging industrial facilities to be built in areas with predominantly Black populations “while explicitly sparing White residents from the risk of environmental harm.”

    The groups, Inclusive Louisiana, Rise St. James and Mt. Triumph Baptist Church, seek a halt to future industrial development in the parish. They say they have suffered health impacts from pollution, diminished property values and violations of religious liberty as a result of the parish’s land use system.

    The plaintiffs say that 20 of the 24 industrial facilities were in two sections of the parish with majority-Black populations when they filed the complaint in March 2023.

    The parish is located along a heavily industrialized stretch of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, known as the Chemical Corridor, often referred to by environmental groups as “Cancer Alley” because of the high levels of suspected cancer-causing pollution emitted there.

    The lawsuit comes as the federal government has taken steps during the Biden administration to address the legacy of environmental racism. Federal officials have written stricter environmental protections and committed tens of billions of dollars in funding.

    “The decisions made in this courtroom will resonate far beyond our borders, impacting frontline communities nationwide who are yearning for acknowledgment and accountability,” said Shamell Lavigne, a St. James Parish resident and a leader with Rise St. James, a local environmental justice organization. “We are advocating for our future and the wellbeing of our children.”

    In November 2023, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana had dismissed the lawsuit against St. James Parish largely on procedural grounds, ruling the plaintiffs had filed their lawsuit too late. But he added, “this Court cannot say that their claims lack a basis in fact or rely on a meritless legal theory.”

    Barbier had accepted the parish’s argument that the lawsuit hinged on its 2014 land-use plan, which generally shielded white neighborhoods from industrial development and left majority-Black neighborhoods, schools and churches without the same protections. The plan also described largely Black sections of the parish as “future industrial” sites, a classification described by the plaintiffs as a form of “racial cleansing.”

    Regardless, the plaintiffs had missed the legal window to sue the parish by not filing their lawsuit within one year after the land-use plan was formalized, as required by statute of limitations laws, the judge had ruled.

    During the appeals hearing, Fifth Circuit Court Judge Catharina Haynes said that the argument raised by the parish “basically makes it sound like if you didn’t sue within a year, well, heck, you can be discriminated against in a bunch of different ways for the rest of eternity.”

    Carroll Devillier, Jr., a lawyer representing the parish, responded that residents had already had the opportunity to challenge the 2014 land use plan when it was being formulated. He also said the plaintiffs “have nothing” to prove they suffered from harms from discrimination in the year before they filed their lawsuit in March 2023.

    Haynes also observed that parish officials, including those representing majority Black areas, had voted to support the 2014 land-use plan. “Why would you vote to discriminate against yourself?” she asked.

    Pamela Spees, a lawyer for the Center of Constitutional Rights representing the plaintiffs, said the land-use plan could be approved by government officials but still reinforce discrimination.

    After the hearing, Spees said that the approval of the land use plan had to be understood in the context of ongoing structural racism.

    At its core, the lawsuit alleges civil rights violations under the 13th and 14th amendments, stating the land-use system in the parish allowing for industrial buildout primarily in majority-Black communities remains shaped by the history of slavery, white supremacy and Jim Crow laws and governance.

    The parish’s 2014 land use plan is just one piece of evidence among many revealing persistent and ongoing discrimination by the parish, Spees said.

    As evidence of more recent alleged discrimination, the lawsuit highlights the parish’s decision in August 2022 to impose a moratorium on large solar complexes after a proposed 3,900-acre (1,580-hectare) solar project upset residents of the mostly white neighborhood of Vacherie, who expressed concerns about lowering property values and debris from storms. The parish did not take up a request for a moratorium on heavy industrial expansion raised by the plaintiffs, the lawsuit states.

    The parish’s lawyer, Devillier, Jr., told judges the solar moratorium had applied to the entire parish and that the plaintiffs’ request for a moratorium on industrial expansion, which initially came in the form of a letter sent by the plaintiffs in 2019, was “never formally considered” by the parish.

    The lawsuit also argues the parish failed to identify and protect the likely hundreds of burial sites of enslaved people by allowing industrial facilities to build on and limit access to the areas, preventing the descendants of slaves from memorializing the sites. The federal judge tossed out that part of the lawsuit, noting the sites were on private property not owned by the parish.

    Lawyers for St. James Parish have said the lawsuit employed overreaching claims and “inflammatory rhetoric.” Victor J. Franckiewicz, who has served as special counsel to St. James Parish for land-use matters since 2013, declined to comment after the hearing. St. James Parish did not respond to a request for comment.

    “How can a judge rule a statute of limitations on clean air, clean water and clean soil? There should be none,” said Gail LeBoeuf, 72, a life-long St. James resident and a plaintiff in the case who co-founded Inclusive Louisiana.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found in a 2003 report that St. James Parish ranked higher than the national average for certain cancer deaths. Both majority Black sections of the parish are ranked as having a high risk of cancer from toxic pollutants according to an EPA screening tool based on emissions reported by nearby facilities, the complaint noted.

    ___

    Jack Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Brook on the social platform X: @jack_brook96.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California to apologize for state’s legacy of racism against Black Americans under new law

    California to apologize for state’s legacy of racism against Black Americans under new law

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will formally apologize for slavery and its lingering effects on Black Americans in the state under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Thursday.

    The legislation was part of a package of reparations bills introduced this year that seek to offer repair for decades of policies that drove racial disparities for African Americans. Newsom also approved laws to improve protections against hair discrimination for athletes and increase oversight over the banning of books in state prisons.

    “The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities,” the Democratic governor said in a statement. “Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past –- and making amends for the harms caused.”

    Newsom signed the bills after vetoing a proposal Wednesday that would have helped Black families reclaim or be compensated for property that was unjustly seized by the government through eminent domain. The bill by itself would not have been able to take full effect because lawmakers blocked another bill to create a reparations agency that would have reviewed claims.

    California entered the union as a free state in 1850. In practice, it sanctioned slavery and approved policies and practices that thwarted Black people from owning homes and starting businesses. Black families were terrorized, their communities aggressively policed and their neighborhoods polluted, according to a report published by a first-in-the-nation state reparations task force.

    Efforts to study reparations at the federal level have stalled in Congress for decades. Illinois and New York state passed laws in recent years creating reparations commissions. Local officials in Boston and New York City have voted to create task forces studying reparations. Evanston, Illinois, launched a program to provide housing assistance to Black residents to help atone for past discrimination.

    California has moved further along on the issue than any other state. But state lawmakers did not introduce legislation this year to give widespread direct payments to African Americans, which frustrated some reparations advocates.

    Newsom approved a $297.9 billion budget in June that included up to $12 million for reparations legislation that became law.

    He already signed laws included in the reparations package aimed at improving outcomes for students of color in K-12 career education programs. Another proposal the Black caucus backed this year that would ban forced labor as a punishment for crime in the state constitution will be on the ballot in November.

    State Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat representing Culver City, called legislation he authored to increase oversight over books banned in state prisons “a first step” to fix a “shadowy” process in which the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation decides which books to ban.

    The corrections department maintains a list of disapproved publications it bans after determining the content could pose a security threat, includes obscene material or otherwise violates department rules.

    The new law authorizes the Office of the Inspector General, which oversees the state prison system, to review works on the list and evaluate the department’s reasoning for banning them. It requires the agency to notify the office of any changes made to the list, and it makes the office post the list on its website.

    “We need transparency in this process,” Bryan said. “We need to know what books are banned, and we need a mechanism for removing books off of that list.”

    ___

    Sophie Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X: @sophieadanna

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Paris’ Olympics opening was wacky and wonderful — and upset bishops. Here’s why

    Paris’ Olympics opening was wacky and wonderful — and upset bishops. Here’s why

    [ad_1]

    PARIS (AP) — Paris: the Olympic gold medalist of naughtiness.

    Revolution ran like a high-voltage wire through the wacky, wonderful and rule-breaking Olympic opening ceremony that the French capital used to astound, bemuse and, at times, poke a finger in the eye of global audiences on Friday night.

    That Paris put on the most flamboyant, diversity-celebrating, LGBTQ+-visible of opening ceremonies wasn’t a surprise. Anything less would have seemed a betrayal of the pride the French capital takes in being a home to humanity in all its richness.

    But still. Wow. Paris didn’t just push the envelope. It did away with it entirely as it hammered home a message that freedom must know no bounds.

    A practically naked singer painted blue made thinly veiled references to his body parts. Blonde-bearded drag queen Piche crawled on all fours to the thumping beat of “Freed From Desire” by singer-songwriter Gala, who has long been a potent voice against homophobia. There were the beginnings of a menage à trois — the door was slammed on the camera before things got really steamy — and the tail end of an intimate embrace between two men who danced away, hugging and holding hands.

    “In France, we have the right to love each other, as we want and with who we want. In France, we have the right to believe or to not believe. In France, we have a lot of rights. Voila,” said the audacious show’s artistic director, Thomas Jolly.

    Jolly, who is gay, says being bullied as a child for supposedly being effeminate drove home early on how unjust discrimination is.

    The amorous vibe and impudence were too much for some.

    “Know that it is not France that is speaking but a left-wing minority ready for any provocation,” posted far-right French politician Marion Maréchal, adding a hashtagged “notinmyname.”

    Here’s a closer look at how Paris both awed and shocked.

    A 21st-century update of Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper’

    DJ and producer Barbara Butch, an LGBTQ+ icon who calls herself a “love activist,” wore a silver headdress that looked like a halo as she got a party going on a footbridge across the Seine, above parading athletes — including those from countries that criminalize LGBTQ+ people. Drag artists, dancers and others flanked Butch on both sides.

    The tableau brought to mind Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” which depicts the moment when Jesus Christ declared that an apostle would betray him.

    Jolly says that wasn’t his intention. He saw the moment as a celebration of diversity, and the table on which Butch spun her tunes as a tribute to feasting and French gastronomy.

    “My wish isn’t to be subversive, nor to mock or to shock,” Jolly said. “Most of all, I wanted to send a message of love, a message of inclusion and not at all to divide.”

    Still, critics couldn’t unsee what they saw.

    “One of the main performances of the Olympics was an LGBT mockery of a sacred Christian story – the Last Supper – the last supper of Christ. The apostles were portrayed by transvestites,” the spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, posted on Telegram.

    “Apparently, in Paris they decided that since the Olympic rings are multi-colored, they can turn everything into one big gay parade,” she added.

    The French Catholic Church’s conference of bishops deplored what it described as “scenes of derision and mockery of Christianity” and said “our thoughts are with all the Christians from all continents who were hurt by the outrage and provocation of certain scenes.”

    LGBTQ+ athletes, though, seemed to have a whale of a time. British diver Tom Daley posted a photo of himself recreating the standout Kate Winslet-Leonardo DiCaprio scene from “Titanic,” only with the roles reversed: He was at the boat’s prow with arms outstretched, as rower Helen Glover held him from behind.

    Is that a revolver in your pocket?

    When a giant silver dome lifted to reveal singer Philippe Katerine reclining on a crown of fruit and flowers, practically naked and painted blue, audiences who didn’t think he was Papa Smurf may have guessed that he represented Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and ecstasy.

    But unless they speak French, they may not have caught the cheekiness of his lyrics.

    “Where to hide a revolver when you’re completely naked?” he sang, pointing down to his groin. “I know where you’re thinking. But that’s not a good idea.”

    “No more rich and poor when you go back to being naked. Yes,” Katerine continued.

    Decades after Brigitte Bardot sang “Naked in the Sun,” this was Paris’ reminder that everyone starts life in their birthday suit, so where’s the shame?

    Paris museums are full of paintings that celebrate the human form. Gustave Courbet’s “Origin of the World” hangs in the Musée d’Orsay. The 16th-century “Gabrielle d’Estrées and one of her sisters,” showing one bare-breasted woman pinching the nipple of another, hangs in the Louvre.

    France sends a message

    Clad in a golden costume, French-Malian pop star Aya Nakamura strode confidently out of the hallowed doors of the Institut de France, a prestigious stronghold of French language, culture and commitment to freedom of thought. Even without a note being sung, the message of diversity, inclusion and Black pride was loud.

    The most listened-to French-speaking artist in the world was a target of fierce attacks from extreme-right activists when her name emerged earlier this year as a possible performer at the show. Paris prosecutors opened an investigation of alleged racism targeting the singer.

    Nakamura performed with musicians of the French military’s Republican Guard, who danced around her.

    Au revoir, closed minds and stuffy traditions.

    Off with their head!

    When London hosted the Summer Games in 2012, it paid homage to the British monarchy by giving Queen Elizabeth II a starring role in the opening ceremony. Actor Daniel Craig, in character as James Bond, was shown visiting the head of state at Buckingham Palace before the pair appeared to parachute out of a helicopter over the stadium.

    The French love to joyfully tease their neighbors across the English Channel and, perhaps not incidentally, took a totally different, utterly irreverent tack.

    A freshly guillotined Marie Antoinette, France’s last queen before the French Revolution of 1789, was shown clutching her severed head, singing: “The aristocrats, we’ll hang them.” Then, heavy metal band Gojira tore the Paris evening with screeching electric guitar.

    Freedom: Does anyone do it better than the French?

    ___

    AP journalists Sylvie Corbet in Paris and Jim Heintz in Tallinn, Estonia, contributed.

    ___

    For more coverage of the Paris Olympics, visit https://apnews.com/hub/2024-paris-olympic-games.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Air travel is getting worse. That’s what passengers are telling the US government

    Air travel is getting worse. That’s what passengers are telling the US government

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Air travel got more miserable last year, if the number of consumer complaints filed with the U.S. government is any measure.

    The Transportation Department said Friday that it received nearly 97,000 complaints in 2023, up from about 86,000 the year before. The department said there were so many complaints that it took until July to sort through the filings and compile the figures.

    That’s the highest number of consumer complaints about airlines since 2020, when airlines were slow to give customers refunds after the coronavirus pandemic shut down air travel.

    The increase in complaints came even as airlines canceled far fewer U.S. flights — 116,700, or 1.2% of the total, last year, compared with about 210,500, or 2.3%, in 2022, according to FlightAware data. However, delays remained stubbornly high last year, at around 21% of all flights.

    So far this year, cancellations remain relatively low — about 1.3% of all flights — but delays are still running around 21%.

    More than two-thirds of all complaints last year dealt with U.S. airlines, but a quarter covered foreign airlines. Most of the rest were about travel agents and tour operators.

    Complaints about treating passengers with disabilities rose by more than one-fourth compared with 2022. Complaints of discrimination, while small in number, also rose sharply. Most were about race or national origin.

    The Transportation Department said the increase in complaints was partly the result of more consumers knowing about their rights and the ability to file a complaint. The department said it helped Southwest Airlines customers get more than $600 million in refunds and reimbursements after the carrier canceled nearly 17,000 flights during December 2022. Southwest also paid a $35 million fine.

    Airlines receive many more complaints from travelers who don’t know how or don’t bother to complain to the government, but the carriers don’t release those numbers.

    The Transportation Department is modernizing its complaint-taking system, which the agency says will help it do a better job overseeing the airline industry. However, the department now releases complaint numbers many months late. It did not issue figures for the second half of 2023 until Friday.

    ___

    The Transportation Department’s online complaint form is at https://secure.dot.gov/air-travel-complaint

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York county’s latest trans athlete ban draws lawsuits from attorney general, civil rights group

    New York county’s latest trans athlete ban draws lawsuits from attorney general, civil rights group

    [ad_1]

    MINEOLA, N.Y. — The New York attorney general and the New York Civil Liberties Union on Monday sued a county on Long Island over its latest move to ban transgender females from playing on women’s sports teams at county facilities.

    The separate lawsuits came on the same day Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, a Republican, signed the policy into law. Months earlier, a judge had blocked a similar rule Blakeman put in place through an executive order.

    Both cases argue the ban violates state anti-discrimination laws.

    “With this law, Nassau County is once again attempting to exclude transgender girls and women from participating in sporting events while claiming to support fairness,” Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said in a statement.

    Blakeman in February signed an executive order to implement the policy but it was eventually blocked by a judge. Then in June, the Nassau County Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, voted to reinstate the ban.

    The rule would bar trans athletes from playing at facilities owned by the county, unless they compete on teams matching the gender they were assigned at birth or on coed teams. It would apply to about 100 sporting facilities in the county.

    Blakeman said in a statement, “I am very disappointed that the Attorney General would attempt to frustrate Nassau County’s desire to protect the integrity of women’s sports, ensure the safety of its participants and provide a safe environment for girls and women to compete.”

    The New York Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of a women’s roller derby league, the Long Island Roller Rebels, which had successfully sued to block Blakeman’s original executive order.

    “It is abundantly clear that any attempt to ban trans women and girls from sports is prohibited by our state’s antidiscrimination laws. It was true when we successfully struck down County Executive Blakeman’s transphobic policy and it is true now,” Gabriella Larios, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Air travel is getting worse. That’s what passengers are telling the US government

    Air travel is getting worse. That’s what passengers are telling the US government

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — Air travel got more miserable last year, if the number of consumer complaints filed with the U.S. government is any measure.

    The Transportation Department said Friday that it received nearly 97,000 complaints in 2023, up from about 86,000 the year before. The department said there were so many complaints that it took until July to sort through the filings and compile the figures.

    That’s the highest number of consumer complaints about airlines since 2020, when airlines were slow to give customers refunds after the coronavirus pandemic shut down air travel.

    The increase in complaints came even as airlines canceled far fewer U.S. flights — 116,700, or 1.2% of the total, last year, compared with about 210,500, or 2.3%, in 2022, according to FlightAware data. However, delays remained stubbornly high last year, at around 21% of all flights.

    So far this year, cancellations remain relatively low — about 1.3% of all flights — but delays are still running around 21%.

    More than two-thirds of all complaints last year dealt with U.S. airlines, but a quarter covered foreign airlines. Most of the rest were about travel agents and tour operators.

    Complaints about treating passengers with disabilities rose by more than one-fourth compared with 2022. Complaints of discrimination, while small in number, also rose sharply. Most were about race or national origin.

    Airlines receive many more complaints from travelers who don’t know how or don’t bother to complain to the government, but the carriers don’t release those numbers.

    The Transportation Department is modernizing its complaint-taking system, which the agency says will help it do a better job overseeing the airline industry. However, the department now releases complaint numbers many months late. It did not issue figures for the second half of 2023 until Friday.

    ___

    The Transportation Department’s online complaint form is at https://secure.dot.gov/air-travel-complaint

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ever feel exhausted by swiping through dating apps? You might be experiencing burnout

    Ever feel exhausted by swiping through dating apps? You might be experiencing burnout

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — While plenty of happy couples can trace their meet-cute moment to an online dating app, many others find the never-ending process of likes, swipes, taps and awkward DMs that go nowhere to be exhausting — leading to a phenomenon known as “dating app burnout.”

    That was the case for Marilyn Espitia, a 31-year-old freelance photo editor and photographer in California who first ventured into online dating in college, when she met her former partner and now father of her child on OkCupid.

    Today she is single, and has been for about three years. While she’s still a “hopeless romantic” who plans to keep using these platforms — primarily Hinge — Espitia says she’ll get off an app or pause her profile when it becomes a little too much.

    “It starts getting overwhelming,” Espitia said.

    Licensed clinical psychologist Yasmine Saad says that about 3 out of every 4 people she works with use dating apps, and anywhere between 80 to 90% have expressed feeling similar fatigue or burnout as Espitia at some point.

    That’s due in part because success is never promised with online dating, regardless of whether you’re looking for a lifelong partner or casual fling.

    “It’s a very difficult process for people because you invest a lot, then you receive little,” said Saad, founder and CEO of Madison Park Psychological Services in New York. “It triggers a lot of hopelessness and a lot of self-esteem issues.”

    Kathryn Coduto, an assistant professor of media science at Boston University who has been studying online dating since 2016, says dating app burnout is probably as old as the apps themselves, noting that people had experienced fatigue with earlier desktop-dominant platforms like eHarmony or Match.com as well.

    But these days, burnout may be intensified by the fact there’s an app for just about every part of our daily lives, and that constant connectivity can be too much. Pandemic-era “Zoom fatigue” has spilled over into other areas of tech consumption, Coduto said, and online dating isn’t immune.

    That doesn’t mean dating apps are going away anytime soon. Research shows usage has remained relatively stable over recent years.

    Pew Research Center said that 3 out of 10 U.S. adults reported ever using an online dating site or app as of July 2022 — identical to the share found in October 2019, months before COVID-19 impacted much of daily life, including dating habits.

    While there was some uptick in new user downloads at the start of the pandemic, Coduto’s research found more of a spike in usage from those who already had dating apps and were spending more time on them during lockdowns. But those same lockdowns also limited in-person interactions, and the ripple effects are still being felt today.

    “The pandemic increased loneliness,” Saad said. “But it also boosted the hopelessness … because even the apps were not meeting the needs of people for socialization.”

    For Jennifer Stavros, a freelance journalist in Los Angeles, her time in the online dating world has “been a mixed bag.” While she’s still giving platforms like Tinder, Hinge and OkCupid a try, Stavros notes she’s experienced a recent cycle of matches that don’t go far.

    “I have a conversation … and it’ll go okay. (But) then it will just drop, or it’ll just hit a wall somewhere,” Stavros, 42, said. “It’s not making me feel super hopeful.”

    Others add that it can also become easy to forget there are people on the other side of those swipes and likes, making them feel dismissed while looking for connections.

    “I think that sense of swiping endlessly absolutely plays into burnout,” Coduto said. “You’re treating people like a card deck because that’s what you’re looking at.”

    Yumei He, an assistant professor of management science at Tulane University’s A. B. Freeman School of Business who has also been studying online dating, said that hurtful experiences — such as being ghosted — can cause users to not trust a platform, or assume all future interactions there will end up the same way, leading them to log off and decide that “dating is important, but my security, my self (worth) is more important.”

    And of course, burnout doesn’t look the same for everyone. Experiences can range widely depending on gender, sexuality, race and ethnicity. Researchers have found that women and genderqueer individuals, for example, are more likely to face harassment than men, while racial and ethnic minorities are often fetishized in online dating spaces, or experience other discrimination resulting from sexual racism.

    The trauma of experiencing discrimination and other abuse on a dating app can make it very difficult to stay on a platform or trust it again, Coduto said.

    Companies are increasingly navigating ways to address all of this. Hinge, for example, in April launched “Hidden Words,” which allows its users to filter out words, phrases and emojis in their incoming likes and comments. A Hinge spokesperson says this feature is aimed at helping vulnerable groups — particularly women, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals — avoid unwanted interactions based on personal preferences.

    Gay dating and social networking app Grindr alerts users of potential safety threats in their area, which has been particularly critical for LGBTQ+ people in countries who may face police raids and other dangers, CEO George Arison said in an interview. Users are also able to “surf the grid” on incognito mode, which is typically a paid feature, for free in some locations, he added.

    “All Grindr users are under some form of challenges in their lives,” Arison said. “Our job has always been to create a safe environment for people to be who they are.”

    When asked about dating app burnout overall, Arison said “we’ve not seen any fatigue of Grindr users” but he noted there’s growing hunger for innovation.

    That’s evidenced by the scores of updates that have recently emerged across various dating apps — from a new prompts option on Bumble, which shifts how the platform historically facilitated its “first move,” to Tinder’s “Matchmaker” feature allowing friends to recommend profiles for each other and Hinge’s tests of “your turn limits” to help fend off ghosting.

    A handful of popular platforms, including Grindr and Tinder, say they’ve started integrating artificial intelligence to help identify potential harmful messages and other safety precautions. Some are also looking at AI possibilities such as using the technology to strengthen matching algorithms or offer users’ message prompts and date ideas.

    “We are just scratching the tip of the iceberg,” said Anindya Ghose, Heinz Riehl Chair Professor of technology and marketing at New York University’s Stern School of Business, who believes AI could help alleviate burnout but transparency will be key.

    Such innovations may be a way to keep people hooked on dating apps. Espitia is among those who say she’d be open to seeing platforms implement further updates — including the use of AI — if it helps improve connections with people around her.

    “We’re in this new age of finding love,” she said. “People really are like starved for love — and I think if that (technology) can help, why not?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Snapchat to pay $15M to settle discrimination, harassment lawsuit in California

    Snapchat to pay $15M to settle discrimination, harassment lawsuit in California

    [ad_1]

    SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Snapchat Inc. will pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought by California’s civil rights agency that claimed the company discriminated against female employees, failed to prevent workplace sexual harassment and retaliated against women who complained.

    The settlement with Snapchat Inc., which owns the popular disappearing-message app by the same name, covers women who worked for the company in California between 2014 and 2024, the California Civil Rights Department announced Wednesday. The settlement is subject to court approval.

    The agreement resolves a more than three-year investigation over claims that the Santa Monica, California-based company discriminated against female employees when it came to pay and promotions, the department said in a statement.

    The bulk of the settlement money will go to employees who faced discrimination at Snapchat Inc., California officials said.

    “In California, we’re proud of the work of our state’s innovators who are a driving force of our nation’s economy,” said Kevin Kish, director of California’s civil rights agency. “This settlement with Snapchat demonstrates a shared commitment to a California where all workers have a fair chance at the American Dream. Women are entitled to equality in every job, in every workplace, and in every industry.”

    Snapchat Inc. said it disagrees with the agency’s claims but that it decided to settle to avoid costly and lengthy litigation.

    “We care deeply about our commitment to maintain a fair and inclusive environment at Snap, and do not believe we have any ongoing systemic pay equity, discrimination, harassment, or retaliation issues against women,” the company said in a statement.

    Snapchat Inc. grew from 250 employees in 2015 to over 5,000 in 2022. But the growth didn’t translate to advancement for female employees who “were told to wait their turn, were actively discouraged from applying for promotions, or lost promotion opportunities to less qualified male colleagues,” California officials said.

    In particular, women in engineering roles, which account for about 70% of Snap’s workforce, found barriers when trying to advance from entry-level positions, according to the complaint.

    California’s civil rights agency also said in its lawsuit that women were sexually harassed and that when they spoke up, they faced retaliation that included negative performance reviews and termination. Male managers routinely promoted male employees over more qualified women, the agency said.

    “Women were told, both implicitly and explicitly, that they were second-class citizens at Snap,” the agency said in its lawsuit.

    The settlement will require the company to hire an independent consultant to evaluate its compensation and promotion policies and retain an outside auditor of its sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination compliance. The company will also have to train its staff on preventing discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment in the workplace, officials said.

    Snapchat Inc. also agreed to provide information to all employees about their right to report harassment or discrimination without fear of retaliation.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Southwest Airlines back in court over firing of flight attendant

    Southwest Airlines back in court over firing of flight attendant

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — Southwest Airlines is set to return to federal court Monday in hopes of reversing an $800,000 award to a flight attendant who said she was fired for her anti-abortion views and a judge’s related order that the airlines’ lawyers take religious liberty training from a conservative Christian legal group.

    Southwest argues flight attendant Charlene Carter was fired because she violated company rules requiring civility in the workplace by sending “hostile and graphic” anti-abortion messages to a fellow employee, who also was president of the local union.

    Carter called the union leader “despicable” for attending the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, D.C., where participants protested the inauguration of then-President Donald Trump and called for protecting abortion rights.

    Carter’s attorneys argue in briefs that she made clear to management she sent the material “because she was a pro-life Christian, and as a Christian she believes she must get the word out to anyone who touches the issue of abortion.”

    They argued firing her violated federal law shielding employees from religious-based discrimination and that Southwest management and the union, which complained about Carr’s messages, should be held liable for her firing.

    After the trial, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr, a Trump nominee who joined the bench in 2019, ordered the airline to tell flight attendants that under federal law, it “may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.”

    Instead, the Dallas-based airline told employees that it “does not discriminate,” and told flight attendants to follow the airline policy that it cited in firing Carter.

    Starr found Southwest in contempt in August for the way it explained the case to flight attendants. He ordered Southwest to pay Carter’s most recent legal costs and he dictated a statement for Southwest to relay to employees.

    He also ordered three Southwest lawyers to complete at least eight hours of religious liberty training from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which offers training on compliance with federal law prohibiting religious discrimination in the workplace.

    The conservative group has played a high-profile role in multiple legal fights. They include defending a baker and a website designer who didn’t want to work on same-sex marriage projects, efforts to limit transgender rights and a challenge to longstanding federal approval of a medication used in the most common way to end a pregnancy.

    Lawyers for Carter said in briefs that the type of training ordered “is a commonplace civil contempt sanction” and denied that it impinges on the airline’s free speech rights.

    The initial monetary award against Southwest and the union was $5.1 million, the bulk to be paid by Southwest. The judge, citing federal limits on punitive damages, later reduced it to about $800,000, including $450,000 in damages and back pay from Southwest, $300,000 in damages from the union and about $60,000 in interest.

    ___

    The story has been updated to correct the amount of the award to $800,000, from $8 million.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court Was Right to Consider Andrew Cuomo’s Unconstitutional Motives in NRA v. Vuollo – and the same Principle Applies to Trump and Other Presidents

    The Supreme Court Was Right to Consider Andrew Cuomo’s Unconstitutional Motives in NRA v. Vuollo – and the same Principle Applies to Trump and Other Presidents

    [ad_1]

    Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. (Lev Radin/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

     

    In its recent decision in NRA v. Vullo, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services in a case where that agency undertook various enforcement actions against financial institutions pressuring them to stop doing business with the NRA, because of that group’s advocacy of gun rights. While these actions were seemingly neutral, evidence indicated that the motive behind them was an attempt to suppress the NRA’s political speech.

    Co-blogger Josh Blackman does not object to this result, but criticizes Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion for the Court for relying, in part, on tweets and other statements by then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Josh complains that it’s wrong to rely on Cuomo’s statements because “he wasn’t even a party” to the case, and fears this part of the opinion is “laying the groundwork for some future Trump litigation, where the chief executive’s social media posts can be used to taint the action taken by some cabinet member…. it is almost a given that people would allege that President Trump and his administration will engage in some sort of retaliatory or coercive actions against protected speech.”

    As Josh notes, Trump’s tweets and other statements promising a “Muslim ban” were central elements of the case against his travel ban policy, eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). I think the Court got that decision badly wrong. Significantly, however, the Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion did not hold that statements like Trump’s were irrelevant, merely that they would not get much weight in the context of immigration policy where the Court concluded (wrongly, in my view) that the executive should get special deference. Thus, statements indicating illicit intent could still potentially be decisive in other types of cases.

    The Court was right to consider Cuomo’s statements. And it should do the same in potential similar future cases involving Trump or other presidents.

    Longstanding Supreme Court precedent holds—for good reason—that facially neutral policies can be unconstitutional if evidence indicates they were adopted for purposes of engaging in discrimination prohibited the Constitution, such as discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or—as in NRA v. Vullo—protected political speech. If such facially neutral policies were immune from challenge, the government could target almost any group for discrimination by focusing on some seemingly neutral characteristic that is correlated with group membership. Instead of explicitly targeting blacks, they could target people who live in majority-black neighborhoods. Instead of openly targeting Muslims, they could (as Trump did) target migrants from various Muslim-majority nations. And so on.

    Such tactics were extensively used by advocates of Jim Crow segregation, when courts started striking down explicit segregation laws. More recently, educational institutions have used them as a tool for engaging in racial preferences banned by Supreme Court rulings.

    Why consider a governor’s or president’s statements in cases challenging policies enacted by subordinate officials? The obvious answer is that the former often influence the latter. As Justice Sotomayor notes, Governor Cuomo was “Vullo’s boss.” Absent his advocacy and support, it is likely she would not have targeted the NRA so aggressively. This is even more clear in the case of Trump’s travel ban, a policy which almost certainly would never have been enacted absent his “Muslim ban” campaign promises.

    The case for focusing on presidential motives is even more compelling if—like many conservatives—you endorse the “unitary executive” theory of presidential power, under which the president is entitled to near-total control of other executive branch officials. In that framework, subordinates have even more incentive to try to implement the “boss’s” directives than in Andrew Cuomo’s New York. Officials who refuse to do the boss’s bidding aren’t likely to be around for long.

    The case for scrutinizing presidents’ unconstitutional motives is often even stronger than with state governors. In many states, the executive branch is less unitary than in the federal government. For example, New York, like many other state governments, has a separately elected attorney general who is independent of the governor. This played a major role in Andrew Cuomo’s eventual downfall. In late 2021, he was forced to resign in large part because of an investigation into accusations of sexual harassment conducted by the New York AG’s office. Although AG Letitia James is a Democrat, her independence enabled her office to do the investigation, and Cuomo could not prevent it. The president exercises far more control over the federal Department of Justice, and other parts of the federal executive branch.

    In the case of both state and federal officials, the government can still successfully defend a challenged policy if it can prove they would have enacted it even in spite of the chief executive’s illicit motives. Vullo has advanced that argument in the NRA case. But Supreme Court precedent rightly shifts the burden of proof to the government in a case where evidence of unconstitutional discriminatory motivation is found.

    Back in 2018, during the travel ban litigation, Josh Blackman argued courts can afford to ignore presidents’ unconstitutional motives because “I don’t know that we’ll ever have a president again like Trump, who says such awful, awful things on a daily basis.” I was skeptical of such optimism at the time. And I think that skepticism has been vindicated by later events.

    Obviously, Trump himself may well be elected again in 2024. And he has already promised to use the power of the federal government to punish his critics. If he does indeed return to power and subordinate officials take actions that appear to implement that promise, courts can and should consider Trump’s statements when assessing their legality. Meanwhile, other Republican politicians have increasingly imitated Trump’s behavior and policies. Even if he loses again and disappears from the political scene, this problem is unlikely to fully go away.

    As NRA v. Vullo shows, left-wing officials also sometimes engage in such behavior. The Democrats may not be as far-gone as the Republicans. But they, too, aren’t above using facially neutral policies to cloak unconstitutional motives, including in cases where the latter are evident from various public statements. Particularly in an age of severe polarization,  where many on both sides are eager to use the power of government to target their enemies, such behavior is unlikely to go away anytime soon. Judicial review cannot completely prevent such abuses of power. But by paying due attention to illicit unconstitutional motives, it can help curb them substantially.

    [ad_2]

    Ilya Somin

    Source link

  • California advances measures targeting AI discrimination and deepfakes

    California advances measures targeting AI discrimination and deepfakes

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As corporations increasingly weave artificial intelligence technologies into the daily lives of Americans, California lawmakers want to build public trust, fight algorithmic discrimination and outlaw deepfakes that involve elections or pornography.

    The efforts in California — home to many of the world’s biggest AI companies — could pave the way for AI regulations across the country. The United States is already behind Europe in regulating AI to limit risks, lawmakers and experts say, and the rapidly growing technology is raising concerns about job loss, misinformation, invasions of privacy and automation bias.

    A slew of proposals aimed at addressing those concerns advanced last week, but must win the other chamber’s approval before arriving at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. The Democratic governor has promoted California as an early adopter as well as regulator, saying the state could soon deploy generative AI tools to address highway congestion, make roads safer and provide tax guidance, even as his administration considers new rules against AI discrimination in hiring practices.

    With strong privacy laws already in place, California is in a better position to enact impactful regulations than other states with large AI interests, such as New York, said Tatiana Rice, deputy director of the Future of Privacy Forum, a nonprofit that works with lawmakers on technology and privacy proposals.

    “You need a data privacy law to be able to pass an AI law,” Rice said. “We’re still kind of paying attention to what New York is doing, but I would put more bets on California.”

    California lawmakers said they cannot wait to act, citing hard lessons they learned from failing to reign in social media companies when they might have had a chance. But they also want to continue attracting AI companies to the state.

    Here’s a closer look at California’s proposals:

    Some companies, including hospitals, already use AI models to define decisions about hiring, housing and medical options for millions of Americans without much oversight. Up to 83% of employers are using AI to help in hiring, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. How those algorithms work largely remains a mystery.

    One of the most ambitious AI measures in California this year would pull back the curtains on these models by establishing an oversight framework to prevent bias and discrimination. It would require companies using AI tools to participate in decisions that determine results and to inform people affected when AI is used. AI developers would have to routinely make internal assessments of their models for bias. And the state attorney general would have authority to investigate reports of discriminating models and impose fines of $10,000 per violation.

    AI companies also might soon be required to start disclosing what data they’re using to train their models.

    Inspired by the months-long Hollywood actors strike last year, a California lawmaker wants to protect workers from being replaced by their AI-generated clones — a major point of contention in contract negotiations.

    The proposal, backed by the California Labor Federation, would let performers back out of existing contracts if vague language might allow studios to freely use AI to digitally clone their voices and likeness. It would also require that performers be represented by an attorney or union representative when signing new “voice and likeness” contracts.

    California may also create penalties for digitally cloning dead people without the consent of their estate, citing the case of a media company that produced a fake, AI-generated hourlong comedy special to recreate the late comedian George Carlin’s style and material without his estate’s permission.

    Real-world risks abound as generative AI creates new content such as text, audio and photos in response to prompts. So lawmakers are considering requiring guardrails around “extremely large” AI systems that have the potential to spit out instructions for creating disasters — such as building chemical weapons or assisting in cyberattacks — that could cause at least $500 million in damages. It would require such models to have a built-in “kill switch,” among other things.

    The measure, supported by some of the most renowned AI researchers, would also create a new state agency to oversee developers and provide best practices, including for still-more powerful models that don’t yet exist. The state attorney general also would be able to pursue legal actions in case of violations.

    A bipartisan coalition seeks to facilitate prosecuting people who use AI tools to create images of child sexual abuse. Current law does not allow district attorneys to go after people who possess or distribute AI-generated child sexual abuse images if the materials are not depicting a real person, law enforcement said.

    A host of Democratic lawmakers are also backing a bill tackling election deepfakes, citing concerns after AI-generated robocalls mimicked President Joe Biden’s voice ahead of New Hampshire’s recent presidential primary. The proposal would ban “materially deceptive” deepfakes related to elections in political mailers, robocalls and TV ads 120 days before Election Day and 60 days thereafter. Another proposal would require social media platforms to label any election-related posts created by AI.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colorado the first state to move forward with attempt to regulate AI’s hidden role in American life

    Colorado the first state to move forward with attempt to regulate AI’s hidden role in American life

    [ad_1]

    DENVER — The first attempts to regulate artificial intelligence programs that play a hidden role in hiring, housing and medical decisions for millions of Americans are facing pressure from all sides and floundering in statehouses nationwide.

    Only one of seven bills aimed at preventing AI’s penchant to discriminate when making consequential decisions — including who gets hired, money for a home or medical care — has passed. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis hesitantly signed the bill on Friday.

    Colorado’s bill and those that faltered in Washington, Connecticut and elsewhere faced battles on many fronts, including between civil rights groups and the tech industry, and lawmakers wary of wading into a technology few yet understand and governors worried about being the odd-state-out and spooking AI startups.

    Polis signed Colorado’s bill “with reservations,” saying in an statement he was wary of regulations dousing AI innovation. The bill has a two-year runway and can be altered before it becomes law.

    “I encourage (lawmakers) to significantly improve on this before it takes effect,” Polis wrote.

    Colorado’s proposal, along with six sister bills, are complex, but will broadly require companies to assess the risk of discrimination from their AI and inform customers when AI was used to help make a consequential decision for them.

    The bills are separate from more than 400 AI-related bills that have been debated this year. Most are aimed at slices of AI, such as the use of deepfakes in elections or to make pornography.

    The seven bills are more ambitious, applying across major industries and targeting discrimination, one of the technology’s most perverse and complex problems.

    “We actually have no visibility into the algorithms that are used, whether they work or they don’t, or whether we’re discriminated against,” said Rumman Chowdhury, AI envoy for the U.S. Department of State who previously led Twitter’s AI ethics team.

    While anti-discrimination laws are already on the books, those who study AI discrimination say it’s a different beast, which the U.S. is already behind in regulating.

    “The computers are making biased decisions at scale,” said Christine Webber, a civil rights attorney who has worked on class action lawsuits over discrimination including against Boeing and Tyson Foods. Now, Webber is nearing final approval on one of the first-in-the-nation settlements in a class action over AI discrimination.

    “Not, I should say, that the old systems were perfectly free from bias either,” said Webber. But “any one person could only look at so many resumes in the day. So you could only make so many biased decisions in one day and the computer can do it rapidly across large numbers of people.”

    When you apply for a job, an apartment or a home loan, there’s a good chance AI is assessing your application: sending it up the line, assigning it a score or filtering it out. It’s estimated as many as 83% of employers use algorithms to help in hiring, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    AI itself doesn’t know what to look for in a job application, so it’s taught based on past resumes. The historical data that is used to train algorithms can smuggle in bias.

    Amazon, for example, worked on a hiring algorithm that was trained on old resumes: largely male applicants. When assessing new applicants, it downgraded resumes with the word “women’s” or that listed women’s colleges because they were not represented in the historical data — the resumes — it had learned from. The project was scuttled.

    Webber’s class action lawsuit alleges that an AI system that scores rental applications disproportionately assigned lower scores to Black or Hispanic applicants. A study found that an AI system built to assess medical needs passed over Black patients for special care.

    Studies and lawsuits have allowed a glimpse under the hood of AI systems, but most algorithms remain veiled. Americans are largely unaware that these tools are being used, polling from Pew Research shows. Companies generally aren’t required to explicitly disclose that an AI was used.

    “Just pulling back the curtain so that we can see who’s really doing the assessing and what tool is being used is a huge, huge first step,” said Webber. “The existing laws don’t work if we can’t get at least some basic information.”

    That’s what Colorado’s bill, along with another surviving bill in California, are trying to change. The bills, including a flagship proposal in Connecticut that was killed under opposition from the governor, are largely similar.

    Colorado’s bill will require companies using AI to help make consequential decisions for Americans to annually assess their AI for potential bias; implement an oversight program within the company; tell the state attorney general if discrimination was found; and inform to customers when an AI was used to help make a decision for them, including an option to appeal.

    Labor unions and academics fear that a reliance on companies overseeing themselves means it’ll be hard to proactively address discrimination in an AI system before it’s done damage. Companies are fearful that forced transparency could reveal trade secrets, including in potential litigation, in this hyper-competitive new field.

    AI companies also pushed for, and generally received, a provision that only allows the attorney general, not citizens, to file lawsuits under the new law. Enforcement details have been left up to the attorney general.

    While larger AI companies have more or less been on board with these proposals, a group of smaller Colorado-based AI companies said the requirements might be manageable by behemoth AI companies, but not by budding startups.

    “We are in a brand new era of primordial soup,” said Logan Cerkovnik, founder of Thumper.ai, referring to the field of AI. “Having overly restrictive legislation that forces us into definitions and restricts our use of technology while this is forming is just going to be detrimental to innovation.”

    All agreed, along with many AI companies, that what’s formally called “algorithmic discrimination” is critical to tackle. But they said the bill as written falls short of that goal. Instead, they proposed beefing up existing anti-discrimination laws.

    Chowdhury worries that lawsuits are too costly and time consuming to be an effective enforcement tool, and laws should instead go beyond what even Colorado is proposing. Instead, Chowdhury and academics have proposed accredited, independent organization that can explicitly test for potential bias in an AI algorithm.

    “You can understand and deal with a single person who is discriminatory or biased,” said Chowdhury. “What do we do when it’s embedded into the entire institution?”

    ___

    Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This Working Mom Overcame Decades of Employment Bias to Become The CEO of Her Own 6K-Figure Company. Here’s How She Overcame Adversity. | Entrepreneur

    This Working Mom Overcame Decades of Employment Bias to Become The CEO of Her Own 6K-Figure Company. Here’s How She Overcame Adversity. | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    It’s no secret that working mothers still face discrimination in the workplace. With few legal protections in place, many moms are pushed out of workplaces (laid off or fired) and subjected to stereotypes about their competency. I’ve faced discrimination as a working mother several times since 1997. I’ve been passed over for a promotion and stepped down from a leadership role because of the discrimination I faced.

    From the moment I saw that little blue plus sign, I’ve been fighting for equality at work and home. A lack of paid leave, exorbitant childcare costs and discrimination made my early career difficult at best, and for the majority of Americans, makes it nearly impossible to have a family.

    I was just 24 years old when I became a mom for the first time. I was new at many things then: adulthood, marriage, and home ownership. I had no idea that the statistics were so stacked against me. Gender disparity didn’t cross my mind—that’s just the way it was. Little did I know that I was stepping into an entirely new world—one that would continually discount me.

    As it turns out, new mothers who take fewer than eight weeks of paid maternity leave are at higher risk for depression and experience poorer overall health. My husband and I were a young couple starting out, so while I desperately wanted more time with my newborn, my mind reasoned that the six weeks of paid maternity leave my employer offered me would be enough — we couldn’t afford for me to take additional time away from work without pay. We weren’t alone. Two-thirds of workers don’t take needed leave because they cannot afford it. They’re also unable to afford daycare. For infants, the average cost of center-based childcare is more than in-state public college tuition in 34 states.

    On my first day back from maternity leave, I learned that the young man hired a few months prior had been promoted over me. When I asked my boss why I’d been overlooked for the promotion, she told me she disagreed with it, but it was out of her hands. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, 16% of working parents have been passed over for promotion because they have children, and mothers are more likely than fathers to report this experience.

    My company’s office hours were 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. I had to walk out the door at exactly 5:30 pm every day to pick up my son by 6 pm or pay $1 for every minute I was late. Still, I was pulled aside and talked to about always leaving on time when other employees were staying late, as though it spoke to a lack of work ethic or drive to succeed on my part. I wasn’t alone. Mothers are 40% more likely than fathers to report that childcare issues harmed their careers.

    There are so many lessons I learned during those early years. Looking back now, it’s easy to see where the bias was and what changes were needed to create equality. My only recourse was to take matters into my own hands. Here are six tips for recognizing and navigating adversity to build a thriving career.

    Related: Why Women’s Entrepreneurship is Booming Right Now

    Tip 1: Change starts at home

    If you carried a baby for nine months and gave birth, you’ve done 100% of the parenting work so far; don’t let your partner assume you’ll continue to do so.

    Like most infants, ours didn’t sleep through the night for many months. So, I went to work exhausted every day. One day, a few weeks after returning from maternity leave, I fell asleep at my desk. The owner of the company walked by, saw me and sent me home. When I told my husband about it and asked him to help, he responded, “I can’t. I have a job.” Not only was I devalued at work, but I was also devalued at home by the one person who mattered most.

    When a couple is deciding who will take more time away after the birth of a baby, it makes financial sense for the one who makes less money to take more time away. That means maternity leave typically falls to mothers because women make less than men. If companies paid men and women equally, this conversation would be eliminated as part of the decision, and it would make more financial sense for each partner to take equal time off work. That would, in turn, change the perception at home.

    Tip 2: Take matters into your own hands

    When my son was about eight months old, my husband and I decided to move closer to family. When we found our new home, I began searching for childcare. Daycare centers were insurmountably expensive, so I interviewed several moms who provided daycare in their homes. I walked away from every meeting deflated.

    I couldn’t find trusted care for my son, and I continued to be overlooked and undervalued at work. That’s when I decided to join the 43% of women who leave the workforce after having children. I quit my job and started my own in-home daycare. I used my marketing background to get the word out, and within two weeks, I was caring for three toddlers and an infant full-time with an expectant couple on a waitlist. I spent the next six years taking care of little ones and raising my own.

    Tip 3: Think long-term, act short-term

    By 2005, I’d earned my writing degree and was freelancing as a copywriter. Two years later, in the midst of a recession, my husband and I separated. With two school-aged boys and a two-year-old daughter at home, I was forced to go back to work full-time.

    Finding work in a recession is difficult enough, but having a nine-year lapse on my resume didn’t help. It was virtually impossible to land an interview and, much less be offered a job that paid enough to afford childcare. Unsurprisingly, women who took just one year off from work earn 39% less than women who did not. Desperate for a full-time job with health benefits, I took an account manager position. The salary wasn’t enough to cover daycare costs, so I held onto my freelance clients. I’d work all day, and then after tucking my kids in at night, I’d tuck into my freelance writing projects. It wasn’t something I wanted to do forever, but short-term, it paid the bills, and long-term, it would set me up to start my own business.

    Tip 4: Look for opportunities

    In 2011, the recession hit the marketing industry, and companies dropped their ad agencies in favor of working with freelancers to ease budgets. My number of freelance clients more than doubled, while at the same time, our agency’s roster of clients was cut in half. That allowed me to negotiate to work on my freelance projects during business hours in exchange for a percentage of my freelance revenue. I was able to take on more clients without giving up all my evening hours so that I could still be a present parent to my kids and get enough sleep at night to face the day ahead.

    By 2013, my freelance business was thriving, and on August 1, 2013, I quit my job to work for myself full-time. That decision changed my life and our home. It’s not surprising that a whopping 75% of self-employed women love their job. Working for myself allowed me to put my priorities in order and plan my working hours around my family, not the other way around. I worked late into the night but also took hours off for after-school trips to the park, family dinners and homework time.

    Tip 5: Be open

    In 2015, I was offered the role of content marketing director for a freelance client. While I loved the flexibility of working for myself, it was an incredible opportunity to build and manage a content writing department from the ground up. I accepted the role and learned all I could. A year later, traveling and late nights became too much, and I needed to be more available to my kids. I gave my notice and negotiated a 12-month freelance writing contract in exchange for hiring my replacement. Within a few months, I launched a marketing agency.

    Related: What Do We Tell Young Women Considering Entrepreneurship? Here are 6 Key Messages to Share

    Tip 6: Remember that actions speak louder than words

    In 2021, my previous employer offered me another role. This time, it was a C-suite position and a stake in the business for bringing my agency into his company as the social media arm of the business. I said yes, knowing that, at the very least, I’d learn something, and at best, I’d grow the agency much quicker than I could on my own. While I enjoyed the stable income and benefits, I was drowning in work, and no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t change the culture. I began looking for support through networking groups and was invited to join CHIEF, a powerful network of women executives. This was an incredible opportunity to learn from other female executives, network with peers and get in front of potential clients; all things my male peers had in spades. I laid out the benefits and requested that my company sponsor the membership. They declined.

    Deciding it was well worth the investment, I paid the fee myself. When I published a LinkedIn post announcing my membership, the CEO expressed disappointment that I hadn’t mentioned his company in my post. That’s when I decided I could no longer work with or for companies that refused to invest equally in male and female executives. In June 2022, I gave my notice and pulled my agency out of the merger.

    On Mother’s Day, we celebrate moms — and companies do, too. It’s no secret that brands are increasingly jumping on the bandwagon of social causes, but consumers aren’t fooled by the many that pay it lip service. They want to see real change.

    Want to celebrate moms? Offer paid maternity, paternity and family leave so that working parents can take the time they need to give their children and their families a healthy start. Normalize paternity leave so that fathers can be equally responsible for and able to bond with their children.

    More than 120 countries, including most industrialized nations, provide paid maternity leave and health benefits by law, according to an International Labour Office (ILO) report. The United States’ failure to do so leaves 80% of the workforce without any paid time off after the birth of a child. Nearly half are not even guaranteed unpaid, job-protected leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act.

    The answer isn’t to leave the workforce. The answer is for the government to join nearly every other nation in offering paid family leave. Until then, taking matters into our own hands is the only answer.

    Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” The same is true for companies. Work-life balance issues cause conflict for an astonishing 72% of women. Don’t share your time and talents with a company that doesn’t support you.

    [ad_2]

    Beth Newton

    Source link

  • Republican states challenge new Title IX rules protecting LGBTQ+ students

    Republican states challenge new Title IX rules protecting LGBTQ+ students

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Another six Republican states are piling on to challenge the Biden administration’s newly expanded campus sexual assault rules, saying they overstep the president’s authority and undermine the Title IX anti-discrimination law.

    A federal lawsuit, led by Tennessee and West Virginia, on Tuesday asks a judge to halt and overturn the new policy. The suit is joined by Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Virginia. It follows other legal challenges filed by Monday by nine other states including Alabama, Louisiana and Texas.

    The lawsuits are the first to challenge the administration’s new Title IX rules, which expand protections to LGBTQ+ students and add new safeguards for victims of sexual assault. The policy was finalized in April and takes effect in August.

    Central to the dispute is a new provision expanding Title IX to LGBTQ+ students. The 1972 law forbids discrimination based on sex in education. Under the new rules, Title IX will also protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

    The states involved say it amounts to an illegal rewriting of the landmark legislation.

    They argue it will clash with their own laws, including those restricting which bathrooms and locker rooms transgender students can use, banning them from using facilities that align with their new gender identity.

    “The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”

    The administration’s new rules broadly protect against discrimination based on sex, but they don’t offer guidance around transgender athletes. The Education Department has promised a separate rule on that issue later.

    Yet in their suits, Republican states argue that the latest update could be interpreted to apply to athletics.

    “Men who identify as women will, among other things, have the right to compete within programs and activities that Congress made available to women so they can fairly and fully pursue academic and athletic excellence — turning Title IX’s protections on their head,” says the suit led by Tennessee and West Virginia.

    As a legal basis for the new rules, the Education Department cited a 2020 Supreme Court case protecting gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment.

    The new suit challenges that justification, saying the Supreme Court declined to address scenarios implicated by Title IX, “such as a school that does not allow a transgender student to use the restroom or participate in sports associated with the student’s gender identity.”

    Among other things, the suits also take exception to the policy changes dictating how schools and colleges must handle complaints of sexual assault.

    The administration’s new rules were proposed nearly two years ago, with a public comment period that drew 240,000 responses, a record for the Education Department.

    The policy rolls back many of the changes implemented during the Trump administration, which added more protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.

    ___

    A previous version of this story misidentified which states led the new lawsuit. It was led by West Virginia and Tennessee and filed in Kentucky.

    __

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas are at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Penn State Scandal Fast Facts | CNN

    Penn State Scandal Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the Penn State sexual abuse scandal. On November 4, 2011, a grand jury report was released containing testimony that former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually abused eight young boys over a period of at least 15 years. Officials at Penn State purportedly failed to notify law enforcement after learning about some of these incidents. On December 7, 2011, the number of victims increased to 10. Sandusky was found guilty in 2012.

    Included is a timeline of accusations, lists of the charges against Sandusky, a list of involved parties, a post grand jury report timeline, information about The Second Mile charity and Sandusky with links to the grand jury investigation.

    Jerry Sandusky

    Birth date: January 26, 1944

    Birth place: Washington, Pennsylvania

    Birth name: Gerald Arthur Sandusky

    Marriage: Dorothy “Dottie” (Gross) Sandusky (1966-present)

    Children: (all adopted) E.J., Kara, Jon, Jeff, Ray and Matt. The Sanduskys also fostered several children.

    Occupation: Assistant football coach at Penn State for 32 years before his retirement, including 23 years as defensive coordinator.

    Initially founded by Sandusky in 1977 as a group foster home for troubled boys, but grew into a non-profit organization that “helps young people to achieve their potential as individuals and community members.”

    May 25, 2012 – The Second Mile requests court approval in Centre County, Pennsylvania, to transfer its programs to Arrow Child & Family Ministries and shut down.

    August 27, 2012 – The Second Mile requests a stay in their petition to transfer its programs to Arrow Child & Family Ministries saying, “this action will allow any pending or future claims filed by Sandusky’s victims to be resolved before key programs or assets are considered for transfer.”

    March 2016 – After years of dismantling and distributing assets to Arrow Child & Family Ministries and any remaining funds to the Pennsylvania Attorney General to hold in escrow, the organization is dissolved.

    Source: Grand Jury Report

    1994-1997 – Sandusky engages in inappropriate conduct with different boys he met separately through The Second Mile program.

    1998 – Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky showered with her son.

    1998 – Psychologist Alycia Chambers tells Penn State police that Sandusky acted the way a pedophile might in her assessment of a case in which the mother of a young boy reported that Sandusky showered with her son and may have had inappropriate contact with him. A second psychologist, John Seasock, reported he found no indication of child abuse.

    June 1, 1998 – In an interview, Sandusky admits to showering naked with the boy, saying it was wrong and promising not to do it again. The district attorney advises investigators that no charges will be filed, and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed.

    June 1999 – Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but receives emeritus status, with full access to the campus and football facilities.

    2000 – James Calhoun, a janitor at Penn State, tells his supervisor and another janitor that he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in the Lasch Building showers. No one reports the incident to university officials or law enforcement.

    March 2, 2002 – Graduate Assistant Mike McQueary tells Coach Joe Paterno that on March 1, he witnessed Sandusky sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy in the Lasch Building showers. On May 7, 2012, prosecutors file court documents to change the date of the assault to on or around February 9, 2001.

    March 3, 2002 – Paterno reports the incident to Athletic Director Tim Curley. Later, McQueary meets with Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. McQueary testifies that he told Curley and Schultz that he saw Sandusky and the boy engage in anal sex; Curley and Schultz testify they were not told of any such allegation. No law enforcement investigation is launched.

    2005 or 2006 – Sandusky befriends another Second Mile participant whose allegations would form the foundation of the multi-year grand jury investigation.

    2006 or 2007 – Sandusky begins to spend more time with the boy, taking him to sporting events and giving him gifts. During this period, Sandusky performs oral sex on the boy more than 20 times and the boy performs oral sex on him once.

    2008 – The boy breaks off contact with Sandusky. Later, his mother calls the boy’s high school to report her son had been sexually assaulted and the principal bans Sandusky from campus and reports the incident to police. The ensuing investigation reveals 118 calls from Sandusky’s home and cell phone numbers to the boy’s home.

    November 2008 – Sandusky informs The Second Mile that he is under investigation. He is removed from all program activities involving children, according to the group.

    November 4, 2011 – The grand jury report is released.

    November 5, 2011 – Sandusky is arraigned on 40 criminal counts. He is released on $100,000 bail. Curley and Schultz are each charged with one count of felony perjury and one count of failure to report abuse allegations.

    November 7, 2011 – Curley and Schultz are both arraigned and resign from their positions.

    November 9, 2011 – Paterno announces that he intends to retire at the end of the 2011 football season. Hours later, university trustees announce that President Graham Spanier and Coach Paterno are fired, effective immediately.

    November 11, 2011 – McQueary, now a Penn State receivers’ coach, is placed on indefinite administrative leave.

    November 14, 2011 – In a phone interview with NBC’s Bob Costas, Sandusky states that he is “innocent” of the charges and claims that the only thing he did wrong was “showering with those kids.”

    November 15, 2011 – The Morning Call reports that in a November 8, 2011, email to a former classmate, McQueary says he did stop the 2002 assault he witnessed and talked with police about it.

    November 16, 2011 – Representatives of Penn State’s campus police and State College police say they have no record of having received any report from McQueary about his having witnessed the rape of a boy by Sandusky.

    November 16, 2011 – A new judge is assigned to the Sandusky case after it is discovered that Leslie Dutchcot, the judge who freed Sandusky on $100,000 bail, volunteered at The Second Mile charity.

    November 21, 2011 – It is announced that former FBI Director Louis Freeh will lead an independent inquiry for Penn State into the school’s response to allegations of child sex abuse.

    November 22, 2011 – The Patriot-News reports that Children and Youth Services in Pennsylvania has two open cases of child sex abuse against Sandusky. The cases were reported less than two months ago and are in the initial stages of investigation.

    November 22, 2011 – The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts announces that all Centre County Common Pleas Court judges have recused themselves from the Sandusky case. This is to avoid any conflicts of interest due to connections with Sandusky, The Second Mile charity, or Penn State.

    November 30, 2011 – The first lawsuit is filed on behalf of a person listed in the complaint as “John Doe,” who says he was 10 years-old when he met Sandusky through The Second Mile charity. His attorneys say Sandusky sexually abused the victim “over one hundred times” and threatened to harm the victim and his family if he alerted anyone to the abuse.

    December 2, 2011 – A victim’s attorneys say they have reached a settlement with The Second Mile that allows it to stay in operation but requires it to obtain court approval before transferring assets or closing.

    December 3, 2011 – In an interview with The New York Times, Sandusky says, “If I say, ‘No, I’m not attracted to young boys,’ that’s not the truth. Because I’m attracted to young people – boys, girls – I …” His lawyer speaks up at that point to note that Sandusky is not “sexually” attracted to them.

    December 7, 2011 – Sandusky is arrested on additional child rape charges, which raises the number of victims from eight to 10 people. He is charged with four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful contact with a minor. He also faces one new count of indecent assault and two counts of endangering a child’s welfare, in addition to a single new count of indecent assault and two counts of corruption of minors.

    December 8, 2011 – Sandusky is released on $250,000 bail. He is placed under house arrest and is required to wear an electronic monitoring device. He is also restricted from contacting the victims and possible witnesses, and he must be supervised during any interactions with minors.

    December 13, 2011 – Sandusky enters a plea of not guilty and waives his right to a preliminary hearing.

    December 16, 2011 – A hearing is held for Curley and Schultz. McQueary testifies he told university officials that he saw Sandusky possibly sexually assaulting a boy in 2002. Following the testimony, the judge rules that the perjury case against Curley and Schultz will go to trial. The incident is later said to have happened in 2001.

    January 13, 2012 – Curley and Schultz enter pleas of not guilty for their failure to report child sex abuse.

    January 22, 2012 – Paterno dies at the age of 85.

    February 14, 2012 – Penn State says that the Sandusky case has cost the university $3.2 million thus far in combined legal, consultant and public relations fees.

    June 11, 2012 – The Sandusky trial begins. On June 22, Sandusky is found guilty on 45 counts after jurors deliberate for almost 21 hours. His bail is immediately revoked, and he is taken to jail.

    June 30, 2012 – McQueary’s contract as assistant football coach ends.

    July 12, 2012 – Freeh announces the findings of the investigation into Penn State’s actions concerning Sandusky. The report accuses the former leaders at Penn State of showing “total and consistent disregard” for child sex abuse victims, while covering up the attacks of a longtime sexual predator.

    July 23, 2012 – The NCAA announces a $60 million fine against Penn State and bans the team from the postseason for four years. Additionally, the school must vacate all wins from 1998-2011 and will lose 20 football scholarships a year for four seasons.
    – The Big Ten Conference rules that Penn State’s share of bowl revenues for the next four seasons – roughly $13 million will be donated to charities working to prevent child abuse.

    August 24, 2012 – “Victim 1” files a lawsuit against Penn State.

    September 20, 2012 – Penn State hires Feinberg Rozen LLP (headed by Kenneth Feinberg who oversaw the 9/11 and BP oil spill victim funds).

    October 2, 2012 – McQueary files a whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State.

    October 8, 2012 – An audio statement from Sandusky airs in which he protests his innocence and says he is falsely accused.

    October 9, 2012 – Sandusky is sentenced to no less than 30 years and no more than 60 years in prison. During the hearing, Sandusky is designated a violent sexual offender.

    October 15, 2012 – Plaintiff “John Doe,” a 21-year-old male, files a lawsuit against Sandusky, Penn State, The Second Mile, Spanier, Curley and Schultz. Doe alleges that he would not have been assaulted by Sandusky if officials, who were aware he was molesting boys, had not covered up his misconduct.

    November 1, 2012 – The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania files eight charges against former Penn State President Spanier. The charges include perjury and endangering the welfare of a child. Former university Vice President Schultz and former Athletic Director Curley face the same charges, according to Attorney General Linda Kelly.

    November 15, 2012 – The Middle States Commission on Higher Education lifts its warning and reaffirms Penn State’s accreditation.

    January 30, 2013 – Judge John M. Cleland denies Sandusky’s appeal for a new trial.

    July 30, 2013 – A judge rules that Spanier, Curley and Schultz will face trial on obstruction of justice and other charges.

    August 26, 2013 – Attorneys announce Sandusky’s adopted son and six other victims have finalized settlement agreements.

    October 2, 2013 – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania denies Sandusky’s appeal.

    October 28, 2013 – Penn State announces it has reached settlements with 26 victims of Sandusky. The amount paid by the university totals $59.7 million.

    April 2, 2014 – The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also denies Sandusky’s appeal.

    September 8, 2014 – NCAA ends Penn State’s postseason ban and scholarship limits. The $60 million fine and the 13 years of vacated wins for Paterno remain in place.

    January 16, 2015 – The NCAA agrees to restore 111 of Paterno’s wins as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought by State Senator Jake Corman and Treasurer Rob McCord. Also, as part of the settlement, Penn State agrees to commit $60 million to the prevention and treatment of child sexual abuse.

    December 23, 2015 – A spokeswoman for the State of Pennsylvania employee retirement system says Sandusky will receive $211,000 in back payments and his regular pension payments will resume. This is the result of a November 13 court ruling that reversed a 2012 decision to terminate Sandusky’s pension under a state law that allows the termination of pensions of public employees convicted of a “disqualifying crime.” The judge said in his ruling that Sandusky was not employed at the time of the crimes he was convicted of committing.

    January 22, 2016 – A three-judge panel reverses the obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz, and the perjury charges against Spanier and Curley.

    May 4, 2016 – A new allegation purports Paterno knew that his assistant coach Sandusky was sexually abusing a child as early as 1976, according to a new court filing. The ongoing lawsuit, filed in 2013, seeks to determine whether Penn State or its insurance policy is liable for paying Sandusky’s victims. At least 30 men were involved in a civil settlement with Penn State, and the number of victims could be higher.

    May 6, 2016 – CNN reports the story of another alleged victim who explains how he was a troubled young kid in 1971 when Sandusky raped him in a Penn State bathroom. He says his complaint about it was ignored by Paterno.

    July 12, 2016 – Newly unsealed court documents allege that Paterno knew about Sandusky’s abuse and that he dismissed a victim’s complaint.

    August 12, 2016 – In a bid for a new trial, Sandusky testifies at a post-conviction hearing claiming his lawyers bungled his 2012 trial. On the stand, Sandusky describes what he said as bad media and legal advice given to him by his former lawyer, Joseph Amendola.

    November 3, 2016 – The Department of Education fines Penn State $2.4 million for violating the Clery Act, a law that requires universities to report crime on campuses. It’s the largest fine in the history of the act.

    March 13, 2017 – Curley and Schultz plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of children in exchange for the dismissal of felony charges.

    March 24, 2017 – Spanier is found guilty on one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. Spanier was acquitted of more serious allegations, including conspiracy charges and a felony count of child endangerment.

    June 2, 2017 – Spanier and two other former administrators are sentenced to jail terms for failing to report a 2001 allegation that Sandusky was molesting young boys. Spanier whose total sentence is four to 12 months incarceration, will be on probation for two years and must pay a $7,500 fine, according to Joe Grace, a spokesman for Pennsylvania’s attorney general’s office.

    – Curley is sentenced to seven to 23 months’ incarceration and two years’ probation, Grace said. He will serve three months in jail followed by house arrest and pay a $5,000 fine.

    – Schultz is sentenced to six to 23 months’ incarceration and two years’ probation. He will serve two months in jail, followed by house arrest and pay a $5,000 fine, according to Grace.

    January 9, 2018 – Penn State reports that the total amount of settlement awards paid to Sandusky’s victims is now over $109 million.

    February 5, 2019 – In response to an appeal for a new trial that also questions the validity of mandatory minimum sentencing, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania orders Sandusky to be re-sentenced. The request for a new trial is denied.

    April 30, 2019 – US Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick vacates Spanier’s 2017 conviction for endangering the welfare of a child. Spanier was set to be sentenced on the one count conviction, instead, the court ordered the conviction be vacated because it was based on a criminal statute that did not go into effect until after the conduct in question. The state has 90 days to retry him, according to court documents. The following month, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro appeals the judge’s decision to throw out the conviction.

    November 22, 2019 – Sandusky is resentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison, the same penalty that was previously overturned. The initial sentence of at least 30 years in prison was overturned by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which found that mandatory minimum sentences were illegally imposed.

    March 26, 2020 – The US Office for Civil Rights finds that Penn State failed to protect students who filed sexual harassment complaints. OCR completed the compliance review after it was initially launched in 2014, and found that the University violated Title IX for several years, in various ways. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announces that the US Department of Education and the university have entered into a resolution agreement that compels Penn State to address deficiencies in their complaint process, reporting policy requirements, record keeping, and training of staff, university police and other persons who work with students.

    December 1, 2020 – Spanier’s conviction is restored by a federal appeals court.

    May 26, 2021 – A judge rules that Spanier will start his two month prison sentence on July 9. Spanier reports to jail early and is released on August 4 after serving 58 days.

    Sandusky Verdict

    Victim 1
    Count 1 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 2 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 3 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Felony 3)
    Count 4 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 5 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 6 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 2
    Count 7 – not guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 8 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 9 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 10 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 11 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

    Victim 3
    Count 12 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 13 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 3)
    Count 14 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 15 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 4
    Count 16 – ****DROPPED****: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 17 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 18 – ****DROPPED*****: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 19 – ****DROPPED*****: Aggravated Indecent Assault (Felony 2)
    Count 20 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 21 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 22 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 23 – guilty” Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 5
    Count 24 – not guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 25 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 3)
    Count 26 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 27 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 6
    Count 28 – not guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 29 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 3)
    Count 30 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 31 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

    Victim 7
    Count 32 – guilty: Criminal Attempt to Commit Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 33 – ****DROPPED****: WITHDRAWN BY PROSECUTORS (unlawful contact with minors)
    Count 34 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 35 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

    Victim 8
    Count 36 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 37 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 38 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 39 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 40 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

    (Due to 2nd indictment, counts start over with Victims 9 and 10)

    Victim 9
    Count 1 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 2 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 3 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Felony 3)
    Count 4 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 5 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 6 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 10
    Count 7 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 8 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 9 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 10 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 11 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 12 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Olympic track uniforms spark online debate

    Olympic track uniforms spark online debate

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — U.S. track and field athletes have around four dozen pieces to choose from when assembling their uniforms at the Olympics. The one grabbing the most attention is a high-cut leotard that barely covers the bikini line and has triggered debate between those who think it is sexist and others who argue they don’t need the internet to make sure they have good uniforms.

    Among those critical or laughing at the uniforms included Paralympian Femita Ayanbeku, sprinter Britton Wilson and even athletes from other countries such as Britain’s Abigail Irozuru, who wondered on social media: “Was ANY female athlete consulted in this team kit?!?”

    Answer: Yes.

    USA Track and Field said uniform maker Nike consulted with several athletes while designing the uniforms, which were unveiled in Paris earlier this week. Among those taking part in the rollout were world champion sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson and Olympic gold medalist Athing Mu, who wore versions of the uniform that covered more than the kit that grabbed so much attention.

    Nike responded to a request for comment from The Associated Press by sending a statement quoting executive John Hoke as saying the company worked “directly with athletes throughout every stage of the design process.”

    USATF seconded that, saying “athlete options and choices were the driving force for USATF in the planning process with Nike.”

    Katie Moon, the defending Olympic champion in the pole vault who is sponsored by Nike, offered the most impassioned defense of the company on social media. She began her post by saying the leotard shown on the mannequin “was concerning, and warranted the response it received.”

    But she said the women had at least 20 different combinations of uniforms to compete in, and can also choose the styles made for men.

    “When you attack the buns and crop top saying something along the lines of it’s ‘sexist’ (which if that was our only choice, it would be), even if it’s with the best of intentions, you’re ultimately attacking our decision as women to wear it,” she said.

    Nike previously found itself at the center of another uniform debate. Several Major League Baseball players complained about the fit of the new Nike Vapor Premier during spring training. Nike has been designing MLB uniforms since 2020 and Fanatics has been manufacturing them since 2017, but this marked the first year for the Nike Vapor Premier jerseys.

    ___

    AP Summer Olympics: https://apnews.com/hub/2024-paris-olympic-games

    [ad_2]

    Source link