The Psychology Today article “How Suspicion Feeds Stigma Against Neurodivergent People” cites Professor Kat Macfarlane’s Fordham Law Review paper “Disability Without Documentation.”
Macfarlane, the director of the Disability Law and Policy Program, notes in her paper that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) never intended to require medical documentation to gain accommodations.
The Hon. James E. Baker, Professor of Law and Director of the Syracuse Institute for Security Policy and Law, provided Politico with feedback to Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts’ year-end report on the federal judiciary that highlighted the challenges judges are facing with Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Baker, co-author of “An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence for Federal Judges” published by the Federal Judicial Center, noted that he expects the complexity of models to make controversies over AI evidence more vexing than debates over DNA evidence, which overcame initial skepticism to become a mainstay in American legal proceedings.
“The challenge with AI is every AI model is different,” he says, “What’s more, AI models are constantly learning and changing.”
In the wake of a disagreement between a disabled patron and management of an AMC Theater in Greenville, NC over seating accommodations, Professor Kat Macfarlane provided accessibility and Americans with Disabilities Act perspectives to ABC News 11.
Macfarlane, the Director of the Disability Law and Policy Program, noted that “The Americans with Disabilities Act governs places like movie theaters and restaurants, and requires that if there’s a policy in place, a movie theater for example, has to make a reasonable modification for people with disabilities.”
David Cay Johnston, Distinguished Visiting Lecturer, spoke with MSN regarding ethics and tax fraud claims made about Justice Clarence Thomas.
“What Clarence Thomas has done would result in not only any judge in America being removed from the bench, but there is a good chance it would result in criminal prosecution for income tax fraud and for false filings in his mandatory financial ethics disclosure statements,” says Johnston.
Professor Paula Johnson spoke with CNY Central on the recent New York State legislation that establishes a commission to study slavery reparations.
Johnson said “It is time to recognize, reexamine, and come up with recommendations to rectify the past. This is an important step forward in correcting the historical record.”
In the Newsweek article “Chick-fil-A Could Be Forced to Open on Sundays”, Professor Gregory Germain provides legal analysis of the proposed New York State bill that would require fast-food restaurants at New York State Thruway rest stops to serve customers on all seven days.
The bill raises questions about what would happen if Chick-fil-A’s lease comes up for renewal.
What happens if “the government’s agency says they won’t renew unless Chick-fil-A agrees to operate seven days a week, and Chick-fil-A sues claiming that the law violates their religious principles?” Germain said.
“The governing Supreme Court authority would be Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 US 682 (2014), where the Court held that private corporations are ‘persons’ under the Affordable Care Act, and that the ACA violated HL’s religious principles by requiring them to pay for contraceptives for employees,” he explained.
Professor Roy Gutterman L’00, Director of the Tully Center for Free Speech, Associate Professor at the Newhouse School, and Professor of Law at the College of Law, discussed two recent New York court decisions supporting Newsday’s requests for police department officer misconduct reports.
Gutterman noted that it is appropriate for agencies to redact personal, financial, and medical details, but “there is a vast disparity between an unsubstantiated report of police misconduct and legitimately private information.”
The article may require a subscription to Newsday.
Professor Gregory Germain has contributed an expert analysis article to Law 360 on the Purdue Phrama Chapter 11 case that is now before the Supreme Court.
In “What Happens If High Court Rejects Releases In Purdue Ch. 11”, Germain examines the question: Do bankruptcy courts have the power to discharge or release claims held by non-debtor parties against other non-debtor parties, or is the power to discharge debts limited to claims against the bankrupt debtor?
He concludes, “If the Second Circuit upheld an opt-out plan, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the certiorari petition, the plan would be effective and binding. That strikes me as the most likely end to the case, as all of the active creditors support the deal, few of the little creditors will opt out, and even fewer, if any, will have the wherewithal to seriously threaten the Sacklers’ well-funded and well-planned defenses.”
Professor Kat Macfarlane, director of the Disability Law and Policy Program, spoke again with Science after the Maryland jury unanimously voted against disabled researcher Vivian Cheung’s discrimination case against Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
“It’s a disappointing outcome but I’m grateful to Viv for taking on this fight,” says Macfarlane. “Every time disability discrimination is challenged in this manner it helps the next person find the courage to speak up, too.”
In a lengthy article on low-income tax debt contributed to USA Today by the Center for Public Integrity, Professor Robert Nassau weighs in on the difference between negotiating debt with the IRS versus New York state.
“The IRS is very reasonable at dealing with lower-income taxpayers who have tax debts,” says Nassau, director of the Sherman F. Levey 57, L’59 Low Income Taxpayer Clinic. “They’re very understanding of people’s circumstances. Compared to the IRS, the New York State Department of [Taxation and] Finance is the devil. The state wants to be a lot more aggressive than the federal government.”
