Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Revenge Porn by Alea V. Hipes

            You love a boy and he loves you too. The birds are chirping, you are whistling, having butterflies, and feel like the luckiest girl in the world. However, as most relationships, things ultimately do not work out and a breakup is inevitable. In the best of circumstances, you can hope to be amicable, cry a little, start having a relationship with a pint of Ben & Jerry’s, and let time heal all wounds.  This simple routine of a breakup is all but a distant memory with the worries that may now accompany a breakup. It used to be that a scorned lover would spread rumors to their buddies after the failed relationship; however, a more permanent and exposed form of revenge has emerged.

Sexual Orientation-Based Employment Discrimination and the Role of the Federal Government by Greta Savickaite

The Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges marked one of the greatest victories for same-sex couples in the United States.[1] The Court’s decision in Obergefell invalidated state same-sex marriage restrictions, allowing same-sex couples to legally marry in every jurisdiction. [2] This ruling follows other victories of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) equality movement, such as the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. [3][4] However, despite these national civil rights victories, the LGB movement faces one of its biggest challenges yet, employment discrimination.[5] Currently, there is no federal law that explicitly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and thus although same-sex couples can legally marry, employers in most states can legally discriminate against employees as a result of their sexual orientation. [6][7] In order to ensure the safety of LGB individuals, the federal government needs to enact a federal anti-employment discrimination law, which protects individuals from sexual orientation-based discrimination.

Monday, March 21, 2016

The Unproductive Laws of Productive Rights by Nura Rafati

Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing on February 13, 2016, has raised many questions as to the fate of pending Supreme Court cases and decisions.  One of such cases is Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which the petitioners bring a claim against the constitutionality of a 2013 Texas law that led to the closing of many abortion services in the state.[1] According to state legislators, the law was enacted in order to set a higher standard of care that aims to protect the health and well-being of women who seek abortions.[2] The impending case is one of many that the Supreme Court has faced with regard to women’s health and reproductive rights, where Justice Scalia consistently voiced a more conservative anti-abortion stance.

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Implied No Latinos Allowed: Why Chef José Andrés Should Not Have To Open New Restaurant in Trump Hotel Despite Contract by Maricela Lechuga

I.               Introduction

Donald Trump’s disparaging comments about Mexicans and immigrants, have offended José Andrés such that he no longer wishes to open a restaurant in Trump’s muti-million redevelopment project in Washington, D.C. As a result, Trump has threatened to sue for performance of the contract, which could include ten years of unpaid rent loss in earning potential.