The newsletter of the ISBA’s Diversity Leadership Council

June 2009, vol. 3, no. 1

Now every article is the start of a discussion. If you're a member of the Illinois State Bar Association, you can comment on any of the articles that appear below.

In This Issue…

• Diversity Task Force—Report from the Chair
  As I write this column, Lynn Grayson and I are putting the finishing touches on a comprehensive report to the Board of Governors detailing the activities of the Task Force on Diversity during the past two years and offering a plan of action to chart the course for the ISBA’s diversity efforts into the future.
• California Proposition 8 update
  Last summer, the Supreme Court of California became the second state high court in the United States to end years of marriage inequality.
• Remarks as prepared for delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program
  Remarks prepared by Attorney General Eric Holder.
• A response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s remarks
   As lawyers, we are trained to tackle intellectual problems daily; however, a lack of diversity and troubled race relations cannot be easily analyzed and solved like a legal issue.
• The Legal Balance: Resources for women attorneys and a safe haven to discuss diverse personal and professional concerns and perspectives
  This spring, a new resource, The Legal Balance, will be made available to women attorneys here in Chicago.  
• Checks and balances at work: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008
  The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 overrule several United States Supreme Court decisions that had narrowed considerably the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
• The 2008 ISBA Diversity Survey
  Last spring more than 2,500 ISBA members participated in a survey conducted by the ISBA’s Task Force on Diversity.
• Chicago Urban League, et al. v. State of Illinois, et al.: Summary of Cook County Circuit Court’s April 15, 2009 opinion
  In a decision issued by Cook County Circuit Court Judge Martin S. Agran, the Court announced that Plaintiffs in the Chicago Urban League et al. v. State of Illinois and Illinois State Board of Education case have stated a valid claim of discriminatory disparate impact under the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003.  
• The Coalition of Women’s Initiatives in Law Firms: From dream to reality
  In the summer of 2008, a group of more than 30 women’s initiatives in Chicago law firms came together to form the Coalition of Women’s Initiatives in Law Firms—the first organization of its kind in the United States. The Coalition’s mission is to benefit member firms by providing positive avenues of communication, collaboration and guidance that help member groups to enhance the recruitment, retention and promotion of women lawyers and support the building, implementation and continued relevancy of women’s initiatives in law firms.
• Reflections on World AIDS Day
  According to The Skeptic’s Guide to the Global AIDS Crisis, a book authored by Dale Hanson Bourke, approximately 8,500 people die of AIDS every day.
• A new path to equality: The Challenge to Section 3 of DOMA in Gill, et al. v. OPM, et al.
  On March 3, 2009, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) commenced a challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  
• The Call to Action: Advancing Women Attorneys in Leadership in Chicago
  The Chicago Bar Association (“CBA”) issued a Call to Action (“CTA”) in 2004 with 10 law firms acting as leadership signatories:

Related Court Cases

Due Process
Murray v. Poani
Plaintiffs filed Section 1983 action, alleging that village and its police department deprived them of their due process rights in active involvement in a private repossession of their vehicle. Issue of material fact exists as to whether deprivation of due process rights was as a result of state action, by officer facilitating unlawful taking of personal property. (APPLETON and KNECHT, concurring.)

Professional Regulation
Parikh v. The Division of Professional Regulation of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
Court was within its discretion in denying neurologist's request for stay of IDPR's order indefinitely suspending his medical license for minimum of one year, upon allegations he had repeatedly touched breasts and vaginal areas of 21-year-old patient during neurological examinations. Neurologist did not show that granting stay was not contrary to public policy; Director explained his points of disagreement with ALJ's finding, and statute does not limit Director's authority to disagree on questions of aggravation or mitigation. (SALONE and NEVILLE, concurring.)

Tax
Kaider v. Hamos
Court properly denied petition for leave to file taxpayer's suit to enjoin disbursement of state funds under Section 11-303 of Code of Civil Procedure, to prevent State from providing health benefits to pregnant women and children not lawfully in the United States. Illinois General Assembly opted out of the benefits bar via federal statute giving states authority to provide benefits to unlawful aliens through enactment of State law after August 1996. All Kids Act raised income threshold for eligibility, and imposed no immigration or citizen requirements, and stated intent was to allow "all children" of Illinois to access affordable health insurance. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring.)

Sexual Harassment
Crittenden v. Cook County Commission on Human Rights
Bartender filed sexual harassment complaint against former employer. Cook County Commission on Human Rights properly awarded bartender lost wages and compensatory damages, given evidence and conflicting witness testimony. Commission properly allowed Petitioner to testify to clarify date of harassment incident, mistakenly identified as one week earlier in complaint. Commission did not err in allowing hearsay testimony of Petitioner's family, as defense introduced subject initially. Commission, as administrative agency, has no general or common law authority to award punitive damages, and County Human Rights Ordinance does not authorize punitive damages. (GARCIA and LAMPKIN, concurring.)