1/25 The final version of my piece on disability identity, Claiming Disability is out today: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… Many thanks to the editors at @BU_Law who did an incredible job of the editorial process. Below, a 🧵on the piece:
2/25 Many people who qualify as disabled under federal civil rights law do not self-identify as disabled. Indeed, only a small fraction of those who qualify as disabled under the ADAAA self-identify in this way.
3/25 There are many reasons for this, but among them is the fact that many of us have internalized a social welfare conception of disability, in which disability is inextricably intertwined with functional incapacity and an inability to work.
1/24 A thread on yesterday’s decision in Bostock. The takeaways: (1) The majority's textualist reasoning was correct and a major win for LGBTQ employees; (2) While important issues for trans employees remain open, those issues are likely to be resolved in trans employees’ favor;
2/24 (3) Bostock has substantial implications for many other areas of LGBTQ equality law, including the Trump administration’s revocation of trans healthcare protections; (4) The opinion’s discussion of but-for causation is critical reading for all anti-discrimination lawyers;
3/24 (5) This is just one step—though an important one—in our country’s ongoing equality struggles. For LGBTQ employees, and for everyone else, it is critical to redouble our efforts to ensure that equality law is a lived reality. #blacklivesmatter#BlackTransLivesMatter
1/17 Understanding the *real* issue in today’s race discrimination case before the Supreme Court: a thread.
2/17 Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Comcast v. NAAAOM, a race discrimination case under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
3/17 As characterized by CNBC (and many other news sources), the issue before the Justices today is “how high the bar should be [in a § 1981 case] — whether [the plaintiff] has to prove that race was the sole factor or one factor among others.”
2/16 First, a response to those who suggested the textualist analysis in the Title VII LGBT cases is not as straightforward as I suggest: I respectfully disagree. #textualism#LGBT#TitleVII
3/16 The conservative wing of the Court has consistently held that “because of" connotes “but-for” causation on a plain language reading. See Gross, Nassar, Burrage. As I laid out in my original thread, sex (even defined as “biological” sex) is a but-for cause in the LGBT cases.
2/17 Many people seem to assume that the application of textualism and originalism necessarily leads to politically conservative results, and thus would lead to a loss in the LGBT Title VII cases. This is not true.
3/17 Indeed, in the case of the Title VII LGBT rights cases, following a principled textualist methodology would necessarily result in a pro-LGBT result.