Monthly Archives: April 2017

Undocumented Parents in U.S. Face Reality of Possible Separation

One of the more popular new articles on Nolo’s website is called “Arrest by ICE: How Can I Arrange to Protect My Child in the Event of Deportation?

The reason is obvious: Statements and order by Trump Administration officials express hostility toward the entire U.S. undocumented population, and recent actions by officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) indicate that it has wasted no time in acting upon this new mandate.

By way of background, the Obama administration also deported large numbers of undocumented immigrants–so many that President Obama was dubbed “Deporter-in-Chief” by immigration advocates.

But it also sought to conserve ICE resources by setting clear priorities: Undocumented immigrants with close family and community ties were to be largely left alone, so that ICE’s limited energies could be directed toward people who had committed crimes or were deemed to be security risks.

That set of priorities, and the predictability that came with it, is essentially gone. Thus we hear news reports of, for example:

  • U.S. citizen children watching as their mother, who has lived in the U.S. for 21 years, is taken away in an ICE van.
  • Deportation of another mother of U.S. citizen children, in the face of Mexican government protests that she had no criminal record and the action thus violated U.S. norms for deportation.
  • Deportation of a young man who was under the protection of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and detention of another DACA-holding young man.
  • Arrest of a young undocumented woman who spoke out publicly about the raids that picked up her father and brother.

Some have wondered whether the media is highlighting the most dramatic cases and fomenting fear, The Washington Post ran the numbers, however, and found that arrests of noncriminal undocumented persons have doubled under Trump.

Undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children would do well to at least discuss what their emergency plan is and, as the Nolo article explains, “make specific arrangements to ensure their children will be cared for in the event of deportation.”

Seventh Circuit Rules: Sexual Orientation Discrimination Illegal Under Title VII

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit became the highest court in the country to rule that sexual orientation discrimination is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While Title VII does not explicitly include sexual orientation as a protected class, the court held that discriminating on the basis of sexual preference is a form of gender stereotyping that qualifies as illegal “sex” (or gender-based) discrimination.

Title VII has long prohibited employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of certain characteristics, such as sex. Over the years, some courts have expanded the definition of what qualifies as sex discrimination. For example, the Supreme Court has held that same-sex harassment is illegal (a man harassing another man, or a woman harassing another woman).  And some federal circuit and district courts have held that discrimination based on gender stereotypes—such as a woman not being feminine enough or a man being too effeminate—qualifies as illegal sex discrimination.

Based on these legal precedents, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has started to pursue claims against employers for discriminating against gay and lesbian employees. However, the EEOC’s interpretation is not authoritative, and not all courts agree that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited by Title VII.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently sided with the EEOC, holding that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of illegal sex discrimination until Title VII. This decision is contrary to the recent holdings of the Eleventh and Second Circuits, which decided that sexual orientation discrimination is not illegal under Title VII. As a result, there is now a split of authority among federal appeals courts—which could mean that the issue will make its way up to the Supreme Court.

Several states and cities already expressly prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. To learn more, see our state articles on employment discrimination.

Put a Marble in Your Pocket Before Attending Open Houses!

Spring open house season is in full swing, with homes freshened up and blooming with as many colors as you’ll see outdoors. In all the excitement, however, there’s a home defect that’s all too easy to overlook–but requires major work to fix.

I’m talking about sloping floors. Just this weekend, I visited a beautiful Arts and Crafts style home from the 1920s, which met most of the marketing copy’s promises of having been “lovingly restored.”

But I got a funny, tipsy feeling while walking toward the corners, and no, I hadn’t had any mimosas with my brunch. The more I looked and walked, the more it became obvious that the floors sloped. Still, I would have loved a way to test how serious the problem was.

That’s where the marble comes in. Set it on the ground and see how fast it rolls in a particular direction. If you really want to plan ahead, bring a level.

A marble that speeds along at high pace is a sign of real trouble: perhaps a subsiding foundation or sagging joists or some other equally expensive-to-fix problem.

At the very least, if you love the home, you’d want to include an inspection contingency with your offer, and make sure the inspector you hire is either qualified to evaluate the situation or can tell you what sort of engineer or other professional has the right qualifications.