Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abortion (2)
- Civil Rights Act (2)
- Race (2)
- 14th Amendment (1)
- 20-1199 (1)
-
- 21-707 (1)
- AALS (1)
- AALS Bylaw Section 6-2 (1)
- ABA (1)
- ADA (1)
- Abortion Conscience Laws (1)
- Accommodations (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- American Bar Association (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Law (1)
- Anti-Discrimination (1)
- Antiabortion (1)
- Association of American Law Schools (1)
- Big Ten (1)
- Christiana Ochoa (1)
- Civil Liability (1)
- Color (1)
- Conception (1)
- DEI (1)
- Dean Ochoa (1)
- Department of Health and Human Services (1)
- Disability (1)
- Diverse student body (1)
- Diversity (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Disability Law
Ochoa, Big Ten Law Deans Pledge Support For Diversity Ahead Of Scotus Affirmative Action Ruling, The Indiana Lawyer
Ochoa, Big Ten Law Deans Pledge Support For Diversity Ahead Of Scotus Affirmative Action Ruling, The Indiana Lawyer
Christiana Ochoa (7/22-10/22 Acting; 11/2022-)
s the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hand down a decision that could fundamentally alter affirmative action, a group of law school deans — including Dean Christiana Ochoa of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law — has issued a statement affirming the deans’ commitment to diversity.
The group of 15 deans represent Big Ten law schools, including IU Maurer. In their statement — which IU Maurer posted to its official Facebook page — the deans say they are “joining together to affirm our commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion through legally permissible means, regardless of the outcome of …
Unilateral Burdens And Third-Party Harms: Abortion Conscience Laws As Policy Outliers, Nadia Sawicki
Unilateral Burdens And Third-Party Harms: Abortion Conscience Laws As Policy Outliers, Nadia Sawicki
Indiana Law Journal
Most conscience laws establish nearly absolute protections for health care providers unwilling to participate in abortion. Providers’ rights to refuse—and relatedly, their immunity from civil liability, employment discrimination, and other adverse consequences—are often unqualified, even in situations where patients are likely to be harmed. These laws impose unilateral burdens on third parties in an effort to protect the rights of conscientious refusers. As such, they are outliers in the universe of federal and state anti-discrimination and religious freedom statutes, all of which strike a more even balance between individual rights and the prevention of harm to third parties. This Article …
Personhood Seeking New Life With Republican Control, Jonathan F. Will, I. Glenn Cohen, Eli Y. Adashi
Personhood Seeking New Life With Republican Control, Jonathan F. Will, I. Glenn Cohen, Eli Y. Adashi
Indiana Law Journal
Just three days prior to the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, Representative Jody B. Hice (R-GA) introduced the Sanctity of Human Life Act (H.R. 586), which, if enacted, would provide that the rights associated with legal personhood begin at fertilization. Then, in October 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services released its draft strategic plan, which identifies a core policy of protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception. While often touted as a means to outlaw abortion, protecting the “lives” of single-celled zygotes may also have implications for the practice …
Gilbert Redux: The Interaction Of The Pregnancy Discrimination Act And The Amended Americans With Disabilities Act, Deborah Widiss
Gilbert Redux: The Interaction Of The Pregnancy Discrimination Act And The Amended Americans With Disabilities Act, Deborah Widiss
Articles by Maurer Faculty
Pregnancy — a health condition that only affects women — raises complicated questions regarding the interaction of employment policies addressing sex discrimination and those addressing disability. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), enacted in 1978, mandates that employers “shall” treat pregnant employees “the same for all employment-related purposes” as other employees “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Despite the clarity of this language, some courts permit employers to treat pregnant employees less favorably than employees with other health conditions, so long as the employer does so pursuant to a “pregnancy-blind” policy such as accommodating only workplace injuries or disabilities …