Martza Majstoravich

Professor Lacy’s article, The Most Endangered Title VII Plaintiff?: Exponential Discrimination Against African-American Males, is now the second most downloaded article on employment on the Social Science Research Network!

This is the link for the top five articles: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2007/07/top-5-employmen.html

 Thank you for checking it out! I’ll keep you posted on any new articles by Professor Lacy.

Please read Professor D. Aaron Lacy’s The Most Endangered Title VII Plaintiff?: African-American Males and Intersectionality Claims.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=984552

Professor Lacy makes a very compelling argument for intersectionality when analyzing Title VII claims. Courts cannot only look at one factor in these types of claims because each factor does not exist in a vacuum. Just as 60 years ago, it was a very different thing indeed to be a white male compared to a white female it is also different to be an African-American male compared to an African-American female. Aside from the central issue of Professor Lacy’s article, I learned other important things which I will address first.

I don’t know how I made it through a year of law school and almost 32 years of life not knowing that convicted felons cannot vote in some states, and that this is something even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. It seems unfair to take away someone’s right to vote. Do felons have to pay taxes? And they cannot vote- why?

Part of the reason I wanted to be an attorney is that I valued the penal system as a means of rehabilitation. However, if the courts do not uphold allowing people convicted of felonies to vote- why should they bother making something better of themselves? It appears as if we are not practicing what we preach.

And let’s not overlook the fact that most POLITICIANS have done worse things than felons, and not only can they vote- but they are in office! I think if our country can support a president who gets an extramarital blowjob from a young female intern in the oval office (and has a history of being a womanizer), then I think when my friend Reginald is finally paroled from his FIRST-TIME drug offense in 25 YEARS that he should be allowed to vote. That’s my feeling on the issue. (I realize some felonies may not carry the anti-voting penalty; however, I still see taking away the right to vote analogous to taking away the right of free speech.)

Intersectionality. Title VII does not recognize a claim which combines questions of discrimination based on race and gender. However, one does have an effect on the other. Being African-American does not mean people will only look at you this way without basing any prejudices on your age, sex, or appearance. Just as many people have preconceived ideas about men and women, it stands to reason that these views will also be influenced by race.

Professor Lacy points out that job discrimination is perpetuated by older white men who have been employed since the1960s who help younger white men obtain employment, a “grandfather clause” if you will. I never thought about this before. When I was a teacher, our principal was an African-American female. She hired a lot of African-American staff members, and some teachers at my school complained. They never considered that the new staff members may actually be qualified. When I think about it, it seems awfully one-sided when someone is quick to point a finger at another person without considering the flip-side of what is being said. Meanwhile, the principal before her, hired only women he thought were attractive. This was a common observation, but oddly, no one ever complained about it.

African-American men are defined in the workplace by a white person’s point of view. Again, this is something I didn’t realize until after I read this article, and I see the unfortunate truth behind it. I am still thinking about Malcolm Jamal and wondering what “being white and speaking white” means. I am white, and I have no clue. But apparently, a lot of other white people are clueless too.

Applying the Price Waterhouse Mixed Proof Scheme appears to be a reasonable suggestion to overcome the obstacle of looking at discriminatory claims against someone who is African-American and male. This scheme looks at whether the same decision would be made in the absence of the discriminated characteristic. Although these two factors would be considered separately by the court, the scheme would look at them as a kaleidoscope, rather than through a fragmented lens. At this time, the Price Waterhouse Mixed Proof Scheme seems to be the best solution.

See also“Am I My Brother’s Keeper: Disabilities, Paternalism, and Threats to Self,” available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=857924

I am so proud of all my professors today.

My Sports Law professor, Marc Randazza, is a First Amendment attorney who represents clients who might not be the most popular with mainstream America. But the fact of the matter is, we all have Constitutional rights. As a capitalist society, those rights should extend to commercial goods. If a company wants to petition for a trademark for a product containing the word “fuck,” why not?

In the Orlando Weekly article, the Washington Redskins is mentioned. Washington’s trademark and fuckingmachines are not analogous. Washington’s logo is disparaging by objectifying an entire race! And if the court looks at the context in which the name was adopted, the court will discover how the name was coined by a man who was known as a bigot. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/book/pages/17.htm. ) Kink.com is not disparaging to an entire race. It is a company catering to a specific market. Although it may be offensive to some people, just like Professor Randazza said in his interview with Fox about Imus, “If we are going to tolerate free speech, and we’re going to love free speech, we’re going to have to love it all.”

The article does no justice to Professor Randazza. Anyone who has bothered to read his bio would know he has a passion for the First Amendment. Students in his class know that he believes in fighting the good fight and how his passion for the law shines through his teaching. Although he has his J.D., Professor Randazza demonstrates humility and does not talk down to us (unless that person is a Yankees fan). Keep up the good work, Professor!

During the month of March, I sent to my family and all two of my friends Bible verses which related in some aspect to law. (My mother did this in February for “heart.”) I don’t know if March is law month or not, but our school participated in law week at that time, so I call it that. Here they are:

Psalms 118, Isaiah 61:8-9, Phillipians 3:7-11, Galatians 3:20-22, Hebrews 10:15-17,

Galatians 3:1-5, Galatians 2:19-21, Romans 2:1-14, Matthew 22:35-37, Matthew 5:18, Jeremiah 21: 11-12, Proverbs 28:3-5, Isaiah 33:21-23, I Corinthians 9:21-23, I Corinthians 4:3-5, Psalm 1:1-3, Romans 13:1-7, Isaiah 51:5-8, Acts 9:30-33, Deuteronomy 30:9-11, Romans 3:19-26, Deuteronomy 7:9-12, Exodus 18:13-27, Matthew 7:1-3, Ezekiel 20:19-21, Acts 17:2-4, Luke 16:16-17, Hosea 4:5-6, Hosea 12:4-7, Acts 5:27-42, Psalms 82