Beyond Title VII: Rethinking Race, Ex-Offender Status, and Employment Discrimination in the Information Age

More than sixty-five million people in the United States—more than one in four adults—have had some involvement with the criminal justice system that will appear on a criminal history report. A rapidly expanding, for-profit industry has developed to collect these records and compile them into electronic databases, offering employers an inexpensive and readily accessible means of screening prospective employees. Nine out of ten employers now inquire into the criminal history of job candidates, systematically denying individuals with a criminal record any opportunity to gain work experience or build their job qualifications. This is so despite the fact that many individuals with criminal records have never been convicted of a crime, as one-third of felony arrests never result in conviction. And criminal records databases routinely contain significant errors, including false positive identifications and sealed or expunged information. The negative impact of employers’ reliance on criminal records databases falls most heavily on Black and Latino populations, as studies show that the stigma of having a criminal record is significantly more damaging for racial minorities than for Whites. This criminal record “penalty” limits profoundly the chance of achieving gainful employment, creating new and vexing problems for regulators, employers, and minorities with criminal records. Our existing regulatory apparatus, which is grounded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, is ill-equipped to resolve this emerging dilemma because it fails to address systematic information failures and the problem of stigma. This Article, therefore, proposes a new framework drawn from core aspects of anti-discrimination laws that govern health law, notably the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. These laws were designed to regulate the flow of information that may form the basis of an adverse employment decision, seeking to prevent discrimination preemptively. More fundamentally, they conceptualize discrimination through the lens of social stigma, which is critical to understanding and prophylactically curbing the particular discrimination that results from dual criminal record and minority status. This health law framework attends to the interests of minorities with criminal records, allows for more robust enforcement of existing laws, and enables employers to make appropriate and equitable hiring decisions, without engaging in invidious discrimination or contributing to the establishment of a new, and potentially enduring, underclass

Foreword: Critical Race Theory and Empirical Methods Conference

Everyone seems to be talking about race. From the protests that erupted in cities across the country over the failure of grand juries in Missouri and New York to indict police officers in the killing of two unarmed black men, to the racially charged statements made by the owners of professional sports teams; and the college fraternity members captured on film singing a racist lynching song; race exploded into the nation’s collective consciousness. Even the Starbucks Coffee chain’s recent “Race Together” campaign, intended to promote discussion about race, sparked a controversy and was quickly withdrawn. These and other events have propelled race to the top of the national media and policy agendas and made it the topic of dinner table and water cooler conversations throughout the United States. Still, broad disagreement remains, particularly between whites and racial minorities, over what these events mean with respect to contemporary race relations

When a Wrongful Birth Claim May Not Be Wrong: Race, Inequality, and the Cost of Blackness

The year 2017 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in which a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Today, when we consider interracial loving, we tend to envision romantic relationships. What is often overlooked, however, is the relationship between parent and child: among the most intimate of relationships. A primary reason for this oversight may be that we do not often conceptualize the parent and child relationship as an interracial space. Indeed, although most people select their romantic partners, few are afforded the opportunity to select their children outside of the contexts of adoption and assisted reproductive technology (ART). While there has been debate over the years about transracial adoptions, there has been little controversy surrounding race selection in ART. This may be due to the fact that within the ART sphere, race, particularly the presumption of race concordance between parents and their children, is seen as neutral and natural: a biological imperative. This assumption and the race selection that occurs in ART are rarely questioned or interrogated. This Essay disrupts these assumptions by using a recent case, Cramblett v. Midwest Sperm Bank, LLC as a point of departure for examining the meaning and operation of race in the United States

All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave

In 1982, African American feminists, writers, and educators Gloria T. Hull, Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Smith co-edited a foundational volume of essays designed to map a program for African American women’s studies and research on issues ranging from racial bias and sexism, to homophobia entitled: “All the Women Are White, All the Blacks are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave.” We reflected on that volume when we accepted the Fordham Law Review’s invitation to take part in its Online symposium honoring 100 years of women at Fordham Law School

Making Sense of Drug Regulation: A Theory of Law for Drug Control Policy

This article advances a new theory of drug regulation that addresses two previously unexamined questions: how law-makers are able to regulate drugs differently irrespective of the dangers the drugs may pose and independent of their health effects, and the process followed to achieve this phenomenon. For example, although tobacco products are the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. they can be bought and sold legally by adults, while marijuana, a substantially safer drug, is subject to the highest level of drug control. This article posits a conceptual model for making sense of this dissonance and applies this model to the regulation of four common drugs: cocaine, marijuana, tobacco and anabolic steroids. Although much has been written on the topic of licit and illicit drug regulation, none of the scholarship in this literature has attempted to explain through an examination of pharmaceutical, illicit, and over-the-counter drugs how the apparent inconsistencies and incoherence of the U.S. system of drug control have been achieved and sustained. This work fills the gap in this literature by proposing an innovative and comprehensive theoretical model for understanding how drugs can become “medicalized,” “criminalized” or deemed appropriate for recreational use, based upon little or no empirical evidence regarding the pharmacodynamics of the drug

The Charleston Policy: Substance or Abuse?

In 1989, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) adopted a policy that, according to subjective criteria, singled out for drug testing, certain women who sought prenatal care and childbirth services would be tested for prohibited substances. Women who tested positive were arrested, incarcerated and prosecuted for crimes ranging from misdemeanor substance possession to felony substance distribution to a minor. In this Article, the Author argues that by intentionally targeting indigent Black women for prosecution, the MUSC Policy continued the United States legacy of their systematic oppression and resulted in the criminalizing of Black Motherhood

How Should Organizations Support Trainees in the Face of Patient Bias?

Some patients degrade, belittle, or harass clinicians and students based on their social identity characteristics, such as their race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. Some patients even refuse care. While this kind of behavior is difficult for all health care workers, it presents unique challenges for trainees. This article offers concrete protocols for supporting trainees when such patient encounters occur, including assessment, debriefing with affected staff, convening team meetings, event tracking, data collection, and initiating organizational cultural changes