Corrections

• Pages: 6-6

EXPOSING JOB LAW MYTHS

Thank you for a great article, “Workers Wronged,” November,

page 36. I have represented plaintis in e mployment discrimination

cases for 32 years. It has become mo re and more dicult to get a fair

chance at trial due to the anti-employee bias of m any federal judges,

including the evermore dicult standa rds

required to get past summary judgmen t.

We take only the strongest cases (e.g.,

employees with long histories of excel-

lent performance who are sud denly mis-

treated after a new supervisor arrives

on the scene, with evidence that the new

supervisor is harder on women or bla ck

employees). Nevertheless, we struggle

to stay in business.

Scott Fortune

Jacksonville Beach, Florida

Social change through law is messy.

But it also aggregates over time. Attitudes toward sexual harassment,

for instance, have changed dramatica lly since Anita Hill. Thirty years

of women standing up one by one is why public at titudes recently

reached the critical mass that brought down Ha rvey Weinstein and

opened the door to a flood of revelations.

The cases are contentious because the sys tem requires that

incendiary allegations b e made. To make a case, an employee must

accuse an employer of anti-social behavior (invidious discr imination

or harassment), and to defend a case the employer must

accuse the employee of misconduct or in competence. Other

advanced industrial nations simpl y require a showing of just

cause for termination of employment and h ave a less onerous

standard for recognizing construc tive discharge. So many of

the cases are, at their core, about basic fair ness and equity.

But employees must squeeze their claims into the discrim ina-

tion mold to hope for a fair result, which is why many cases are

not successful.

Michael Leech

Philadelphia

SOVEREIGN HAWAII

While it might sound nice in theor y for Hawaii to become

a sovereign country again (“To Form a Nation,” November,

page 54), do the people of Hawaii really want to lose all of the

rights they now enjoy as Americans?

One need look no furthe r than another Pacific island

whose people once enjoyed rights as Am ericans: the

Philippines. Prior to 1946, Filipinos were U. S. nationals. (U.S.

nationals are almost the same as U.S . citizens: They carry the

same U.S. passpor ts as citizens; can freely travel to, live in

and work anywhere in the country ; are completely immune

from deportation or visa requiremen ts; and can apply for full

U.S. citizenship after living any where in the country for three

month s.)

By getting independence, Filipin os subjected themselves

to the full wrath of U.S. immigration law (something th at is

becoming more and more onerous by the day). Today, it can

take almost two decades for some Filipinos to immigr ate

to the U.S. There are massive lines to get visas at the U. S.

Embassy in Manila, and it is increasingly di cult to get any

work visas for Filipinos.

Do the Hawaiians really want to subject themselves to the

same fate?

Josh Eron

Rolling Hills Estates, California

CORRECTIONS

Due to an editing error, “Zeroing In,” December, page 16,

misquoted Kavitha Mediratta’s description of her work. It

should have been described as examinin g the “racially biased

eects of zero tolerance school disciplina ry policies” on chil-

dren’s education.

“From Campus to Courtroom,” Decemb er, page 54,

should have identified Baylor Universit y in Waco, Texas.

Because of a reporting error, “You Only Live Once,”

December, page 62, misstated that Patricia Brown Holmes

and Zaldwaynaka “Z” Scott worked together on th e case of

U.S. v. Mohammad. They instead worked together on U. S.

v. Emenogha, a multidefendant drug and money-struc turing

case.

“Balancing Act,” November, page 24, should have stated

that the opinion from the New York City Bar Association’s

Professional Ethics Committee interprets New York state

court rules that are based on elem ents of the ABA Model

Rules of Professional Conduct. Due to an editing error, the

article identifies “ the New York City bar’s rule.”

The Journal regrets the errors.

Letters

6 || ABA JOURNAL JANUARY 2018