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:
Housing Justice v. Housing Injustice: How Unfair Housing Practices Keep Segregation Intact - Part 4: Resources for Rebuilding
April 26 - Chicago - Online Course
Related Court Cases
Involuntary Administration of Medication
In re Clinton S.
Court granted petition for involuntary administration of psychotropic medication and ordered that Respondent, who had been diagnosed with end-stage kidney failure, undergo regular hemodialysis treatments, based on evidence that hemodialysis was essential for safe and effective administration of medication. Court did not err by factoring hemodialysis into its consideration of whether benefits of psychotropic medication outweighed harm. Petition and testimony of Respondent's treating psychiatrist provided enough details to show that psychiatrist had meaningfully weighed benefits and harm of requested medications, and her treatment plan addressed Respondent's mental and physical health conditions, which were inextricably linked.(BIRKETT and SPENCE, concurring.)
Disclaimer: This newsletter is for subscribers’ personal use only; redistribution is prohibited. Copyright Illinois State Bar Association. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association or Editors, and likewise the publication of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad that there is such approval or endorsement.