Category: Courts

LIC Post: Queens Electeds Celebrate Supreme Court Ruling Against Workplace LGBTQ Discrimination

  By , ,

By Allie Griffin

Originally published by the LIC Post on June 15, 2020.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that employers cannot fire workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity and Queens elected officials are celebrating the historic decision.

The Court ruled that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans workplace discrimination based on sex, race, religion and national origin.

The Court ruled in a landmark six-three vote that sex discrimination also applies to gay and transgender workers.

Jackson Heights Council Member and Chair of the Council LGBT Caucus Daniel Dromm praised the ruling.

“History will remember this day as the day that the Supreme Court stood up for the fundamental protections enshrined in the Civil Rights Act,” he said in a statement. “Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed the letter and spirit of Title VII of the Act: that no one should be fired for simply being who they are.”

Dromm spoke of his own experience as one of the first openly-gay public school teachers in New York State. He said the fear of being fired for being gay was “ever-present.”

“Because of this decision, those days have been relegated to the dustbin of history,” Dromm said.

Many Queens lawmakers cheered the Supreme Court decision on Twitter.

Astoria Council Member and Queens borough president candidate Costa Constantinides called today “a historic day for #LGBTQ rights.”

“Even though it took almost 60 yrs since the Civil Rights Act was passed, there is now a guarantee you cannot be fired for who you are or who you love,” he wrote on Twitter.

Southeast Queens Council Member and another BP candidate Donovan Richards also tweeted his support.

“This landmark decision will ensure the LGBTQ community is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve in the work place [sic],” he wrote.

Eastern Queens Council Member Barry Grodenchik took to Twitter as well.

“Huge victory for #LGBTQ rights, human rights, and civil rights today from the #SupremeCourt,” he wrote with a link to a New York Times article on the Court ruling. “A watershed moment in the history of our nation. Forward!”

The ruling was based on three separate cases where employees were fired after disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Two cases involved gay men who were let go from their jobs. One man was a government employee who was fired after joining a gay softball league in Georgia. The second was a skydiving instructor on Long Island who disclosed he was gay to a customer and was subsequently let go.

The third case was a transgender woman who came out to her funeral home employer in Michigan and was fired two weeks later after having been employed for six years.

Justices Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority decision and was joined by Justices John Roberts Jr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh voted against the increased interpretation of Title VII.

Gorsuch said that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation inherently involves the role of one’s sex.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” he wrote. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Read more here.

El Diario: Exigen a Albany no retroceder en avances de reforma a la justicia

  By , , , , , , , , ,

Mientras opositores de medidas como la eliminación de fianzas para delitos no violentos intentan empujar cambios en la Legislatura estatal, defensores advierten que hacerlo sería volver a criminalizar a los más pobres, negros y latinos

Exigen a Albany no retroceder en avances de reforma a la justicia.

Por Edwin Martinez

18 de Febrero 2020

El año pasado los promotores de la reforma a la justicia penal celebraron con bombos y platillos la aprobación de varias medidas que pretenden, entre otras cosas, que la aplicación de la justicia no dependa ni del nivel de ingresos o de pobreza, ni del perfil racial de los presuntos infractores.

Y aunque han pasado menos de dos meses desde que entró en vigor la nueva Ley de Fianzas, que permite que acusados de delitos no violentos esperen fuera de la cárcel a que llegue el momento de comparecer a juicio, nuevamente hay sobre la mesa un tira y afloje. La presión de diferentes sectores que insisten en que los cambios han aumentado la criminalidad en Nueva York y que pudiera ponerse en riesgo la seguridad, y una iniciativa en el Senado que pareciera representar ese tenor, hace temer que en la actual sesión legislativa en Albany se ponga en juego las normas recientemente aprobadas, lo que ha disparado las alarmas.

Defensores de los cambios en las provisiones del sistema penal, como el concejal de Queens, Daniel Dromm,quien lleva décadas luchando de la mano de activistas y organizaciones para que el sistema judicial sea “verdaderamente justo”, exigieron este martes que la Legislatura estatal no dé pasos hacia atrás en las leyes aprobadas y deje las cosas como están en materia de fianzas.

Ese fue el llamado que hicieron este martes líderes políticos y comunitarios en medio de una manifestación que tuvo lugar en Diversity Plaza, en Jackson Heights, donde aseguraron que si Albany no se compromete a proteger la reforma al sistema de fianzas que está aplicándose desde enero pasado, se regresará a “la política racista que encarcela a miles de neoyorquinos negros e hispanos inocentes”.

“A las personas como Harvey Weinstein, que está en libertad bajo fianza, se les permite deambular, a pesar de tener muchas acusaciones serias, mientras que las personas que tienen unafianza de $250 por una infracción menor, no tenían permitido salir, hasta que esta ley entró en vigencia. Estas son las injusticias de las que hablamos cuando hablamos de luchar por la reforma de las fianzas”, aseguró el concejal Dromm, quien advirtió que detrás del empuje para que Albany retroceda en sus leyes hay fuerzas de derecha que “quieren mentir”, asegurando que la ley de fianzas aumenta el crimen.

“Creo que la PBA ha caracterizado mal a esta ley y ha creado una atmosfera de miedo en la comunidad, algo que tenemos que combatir. En honor a la verdad sabemos que el 85% de la gente que están atrapadas en Rikers Island han cometido delitos menores. Estamos hablando de un asunto de justicia. Es importante que mantengamos la ley de reforma de fianzas como está ahora y que no haya cambios”.

Exigen a Albany no retroceder en avances de reforma a la justicia.

Dromm agregó que la detención preventiva innecesariamente pone a demasiadas personas en riesgo, en especial a poblaciones marginadas como negros, latinos, inmigrantes y comunidades LGBTQ.

Comunidades criminalizadas

Jessica González-Rojas, candidata demócrata a la Asamblea Estatal por el Distrito 34, se sumó al clamor y dijo que no se puede permitir que los avances retrocedan.

“La reforma de la fianza es una reforma vitalmente necesaria que afecta a muchas comunidades de color y personas de bajos ingresos, porque las poblaciones marginadas no pueden pagar la fianza son criminalizadas desproporcionadamente debido a la pobreza”, dijo la política. “Nos mantenemos unidos contra el miedo y con nuestros líderes estatales para mantener las importantes reformas de la justicia penal que se han logrado y necesitamos avanzar más”.

La senadora Julia Salazar manifestó que aunque considera que la cámara alta no retrocederá en lo que ya firmó, es necesario estar muy atentos y luchar unidos para garantizar que no haya cambios.

“Tengo preocupaciones sobre eso, pero hasta ahora no me parece que una nueva propuesta vaya a pasar. Siento que la reforma aprobada el año pasado era importante y tendrá un impacto positivo, y por eso no apoyo ninguna propuesta que eche para atrás lo que ya logramos”, dijo la senadora por Brooklyn.

Diferentes sectores de la policía se oponen a acabar con las fianzas.

Jon McFarlane, activista de justicia penal de la organización VOCAL-NY, defendió la ley vigente como un alivio a décadas de injusta criminalización a comunidades pobres.

“La reforma de la fianza permite a hombres y mujeres quedarse con sus hijos. Les permite mantener su empleo y continuar en sus comunidades, pues durante demasiado tiempo, personas pobres de sectores como Corona, Jackson Heights y East Elmhurst han sido víctimas. Esto es una cuestión de derechos humanos y debemos defender la reforma de la fianza”.

Una propuesta preocupante

Sobre la propuesta de tumbar lo logrado, organizaciones como The Legal Aid Society y The Bronx Defenders,entre otras aseguraron que es sumamente preocupante.

“La propuesta de la mayoría del Senado estatal pone la política por encima de las personas al no solo revertir las reformas fundamentales y necesarias que respaldaron y defendieron hace solo unos meses, sino que crearon un sistema mucho más regresivo para la detención preventiva dijeron. “Si se aprueba, esta propuesta (retroceder en las fianzas) aumentaría dramáticamente el número de personas que languidecen en la cárcel que se presumen inocentes. Crearía un sistema en el que incluso personas inocentes serían encarceladas sin posibilidad de liberación.

Exigen a Albany no retroceder en avances de reforma a la justicia.

Al ser consultada sobre las preocupaciones que tiene tanto quienes se oponen a la nueva ley de fianzas como quienes se oponen a que sean cambiadas, la líder de la mayoría demócrata del Senado, Andrea Stewart-Cousins dijo: “Nos estamos deshaciendo de la fianza en efectivo por completo. En pocas palabras, las reformas garantizarán que nadie sea encarcelado simplemente por su incapacidad de pago y que nadie salga de la cárcel debido a su enorme riqueza. Les daríamos a los jueces cierta discreción, pero con pautas y barandillas extremadamente estrictas y casi todos los delitos menores y no violentos no serían elegibles para la prisión preventiva”.

Mas aqui.

Opinion: New York City Must Protect Due Process for All in The Trump Era

  By , , , ,

 

(photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

By Carlos Menchaca and Daniel Dromm

Originally posted in the Gotham Gazette on June 9, 2018

Under the Trump administration, we are seeing escalated attacks against immigrant communities across the country. Raids, workplace sweeps, and the detention of Dreamers, asylum seekers, and other immigrants have led to the daily separation of families.

More than any other city, New York City has been proactive in responding to these attacks. At the center of our efforts to support our immigrant community is the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) — the nation’s first universal legal defense program for immigrants facing deportation.

Over the last four years, NYIFUP has set the national standard for protecting the due process rights of immigrants and keeping families together.

Research shows that detained immigrants with access to legal counsel have a 48% probability of success in immigration court, as compared to 4% without access to counsel.

Moreover, the New York City Council has made significant investments in complementary initiatives, including providing representation to immigrant children, survivors of domestic violence, asylum seekers, and those applying for U.S. citizenship.

Our comprehensive legal services effort ensures income is not a barrier to obtaining quality, trustworthy representation for many immigrants at risk of deportation.

Unfortunately, Mayor de Blasio has dangerously limited due process to many more at risk of deportation by quietly implementing a policy that excludes immigrants, including veterans, with certain convictions from qualifying for representation through our legal defense programs.

New York City already mandates universal appointment of counsel in Family Court and Housing Court. Appointed counsel in those courts is based on financial need, not on a person’s criminal record.

A criminal record may, at times, be a factor for a judge deciding the merits of the case, but it’s never a factor in deciding who deserves an attorney. We must have the same standard in our immigration courts that we do in family and housing.

Elected officials, especially those who proclaim a progressive identity, should not fuel the nation’s deportation machine by limiting due process at a time like this.

Instead, we have a duty to do everything in our power to ensure a level playing field in a system that is heavily weighted against people of color and immigrants, who all too often are ensnared by a system set up to criminalize them.

The mayor’s approach is dangerous. We reject his exclusionary policy and urge him to restore our legal services programs to universal representation models without discriminatory exclusions.

Our legal services programs do not determine who gets to stay in the country and who doesn’t — that is the role of our courts. Instead, our publicly funded programs help immigrants understand the proceedings they are in, as well as their legal rights and obligations.

Making certain individuals ineligible for legal services strips them of a meaningful opportunity to have their day in court — leaving immigrants subject to deportation to countries where their lives may be at risk and allowing for the senseless separation of families.

We would do well to remember the words of retired Immigration Judge Paul Grussendorf, who explained, “it is un-American to detain someone, send them to a remote facility where they have no contact with family, place them in legal proceedings where they are often unable to comprehend, and not to provide counsel for them.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said that states are the laboratories of democracy. We add that cities are the spark of genius that drives innovation in our democracy.

New York City has led the way in protecting the rights of immigrants. We must expand on that progress — not turn back. Other cities across the nation are looking to us as beacons of progress.

As descendants of immigrants and LGBTQ members of the New York City Council, and as New Yorkers, we are committed to eradicating inequality, discrimination, and barriers to fairness in our great city.

We are committed to universal representation and due process for all immigrant New Yorkers.

Justice is on our side.

***
Carlos Menchaca and Daniel Dromm are members of the New York City Council, representing parts of Brooklyn and Queens, respectively. Menchaca chairs the Council’s immigration committee, while Dromm is chair of the finance committee. On Twitter @cmenchaca and @Dromm25.

***

Read more here.

NY Daily News: NYCHA leaning toward allowing judicial oversight of its operations as means to close federal probe

  By , , ,

 

NYCHA General Manager Vito Mustaciuolo appears before the New York City Council Committee on Finance, Public Housing and Subcommittee on Capital Budget on Wednesday. (Emil Cohen/New York City Council)

By Greg B. Smith

Originally published by the New York Daily News on May 16, 2018

The city housing authority is moving toward agreeing to expanded judicial oversight of its operations to resolve a long-standing federal investigation, NYCHA’s top lawyer revealed Wednesday.

During a city council budget hearing, Acting General Counsel Kelly MacNeal was questioned about the status of a two-year ongoing probe by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney.

For the past few months NYCHA officials have said they are close to settling the case, but they’ve consistently declined to elaborate, citing ongoing talks with the feds.

During the hearing Finance Committee Chairman Daniel Dromm (D-Queens) questioned NYCHA General Manager Vito Mustaciuolo about the status of the negotiations.

Mustaciuolo turned the question over to MacNeal, who revealed for the first time NYCHA’s end goal — a so-called consent decree in which NYCHA resolves the federal investigation by ceding to oversight by a federal judge.

“We are in discussions with the Southern District to enter into a consent decree,” MacNeal stated. “Those discussions are ongoing.”

A spokesman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman declined to comment.

NYCHA already is participating in a small-scale consent decree that relates to its failure to clean up toxic mold from apartments with tenants who have asthma.

This new agreement would greatly expand that oversight to monitor how NYCHA complies with all state, local and federal laws and rules.

Last year authority managers admitted that for years NYCHA had misled the federal housing agency that funds most of its operations by falsely claiming it had performed all required lead paint inspections of its aging apartments.

The feds’ probe, which appears to have started in late 2015, includes the lead paint lies but also multiple other issues of non-compliance, sources have told the Daily News.

Another consent decree would just be the latest example of outside entities forcing oversight on the long-troubled agency.

In April Gov. Cuomo signed an executive order creating an emergency monitor to oversee fixup projects at NYCHA funded by the state and city.

The order requires Mayor de Blasio, the city council and a tenant leader group to pick a monitor by June 2, but so far de Blasio has expressed reservations about the order and 45 days in no potential candidates have emerged.

On Wednesday under questioning from Councilmember Vanessa Gibson (D-Bronx), NYCHA General Manager Mustaciuolo stated that the city intends to comply with Cuomo’s order, but that NYCHA views the order as “problematic for us in a number of ways.”

He predicted the order — which requires the new monitor to oversee all projects funded by the state and city — will mean NYCHA will lose control of its rebuilding projects and have to deal with yet another layer of bureaucracy.

“Our concerns have been raised to the governor’s office,” he said.

Cuomo’s office did not return calls seeking comment.

Read more here.

NY Daily News: Activists and parents demand N.Y. education officials reduce class sizes in lawsuit

  By , ,

 

Leonie Haimson (l.), executive director of Class Size Matters, said the city has increased class sizes, ignoring a 2007 law requiring lower class sizes. (BARRY WILLIAMS/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

By Ben Chapman

Originally published by the New York Daily News on April 16, 2018

Advocates and city parents have filed a lawsuit calling on state Education Department officials and city schools Chancellor Richard Carranza to reduce class sizes in the public schools.

The suit filed in Albany State Supreme Court Thursday was brought by advocates with Class Size Matters, the Alliance for Quality Education and nine parents from all five New York City boroughs.

It claims the state and city Education officials have ignored a 2007 law called the Contract for Excellence that required the city to lower class sizes.

Class Size Matters founder Leonie Haimson said the city has instead increased class sizes, with nearly one-third of all students in classes of 30 or more children.

“It is unconscionable that the state and the city have flouted the law and are subjecting over 290,000 students to overcrowded classes of 30 students or more,” said Haimson, citing a Class Size Matters analysis of city Education Department data.

The lawsuit calls on city schools Chancellor Richard A. Carranza (pictured) and Education Department officials to decrease public school class sizes. (TODD MAISEL/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

According to Haimson, a plan the city created in 2007 aimed to reduce the number of students in classrooms from 20 to 25, depending on the grade.

But city Education Department statistics show the current average class size across all grades is 26.1 students.

Studies have shown that smaller class sizes lead to better academic results for students and efforts to reduce class sizes have enjoyed broad support from city educators.

And local politicians, including Public Advocate Letitia James, Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. and City Council Finance Chair Daniel Dromm, all issued statements in support of the suit.

Studies have shown that smaller class sizes lead to better academic results for students. (TODD MAISEL/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

State Education Department officials declined to comment on the suit, citing a policy against speaking about active litigation.

City Education Department spokesman Michael Aciman said the city has invested $6.5 billion to create more than 46,600 classroom seats in overcrowded areas.

“We are committed to addressing overcrowding across this city and have invested significant resources to increase seat capacity and reduce class size,” Aciman said.

“As a result of this work, average class size across the city has decreased from 26.4 students per class in the 2015-16 school year to 26.1 this year,” he said.

Read more here.

Time to Support New York Students with Billions Still Owed from Campaign for Fiscal Equity

  By , , ,

By Hon. Daniel Dromm, Chairperson, NYC Council Committee on Education

Originally published in the Gotham Gazette on January 25, 2016

Council Member Dromm (middle), the author, at the Queens Library. Photo courtesy of the Gotham Gazette.

Council Member Dromm (middle), the author, at the Queens Library. Photo courtesy of the Gotham Gazette.

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s recently proposed budget plan for education is a mixed bag, but represents a major shift from his attacks on public education in years past. Ultimately, however, his plan falls short by allocating less than $1 billion in new education money this year at a time when public schools are still owed more than $4.4 billion in Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) funding.

The CFE was a lawsuit brought by parents against the State of New York over a decade ago. These parents charged the State with failing to provide public school students with an adequate education. In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the State in violation of a student’s constitutional right to a “sound and basic education” by underfunding schools.

Nearly ten years later students have still not received the money due to them. The State still owes New York City a staggering $2 billion, leaving our public schools woefully underfunded.

Even the $1.3 billion school aid increase provided in the 2015-16 budget was not enough to restore the massive cuts our schools suffered earlier in the decade. Public schools in immigrant and low-income communities are particularly affected, most of which are owed over 77% of outstanding CFE dollars.

Just imagine the transformative impact a $4.4 billion dollar investment in public education would have on our children’s lives. If adequately funded, schools would have the ability to hire additional teachers and school support personnel. Among other things, these sorely needed dollars would provide our students with a more robust physical education and help expand arts education in our schools. These CFE funds would bring about a dramatic reduction in class sizes in New York’s most overcrowded school districts. The possibilities are endless.

Credit where credit is due: I am excited that the Governor sees the value of the community school model and recognizes how successful community schools have been in New York City. Supporting students holistically—by offering support groups and child daycare for parents, access to physical and mental healthcare, mentors for students and other valuable services—will make them successful in many ways.
The $100 million he has allocated for community schools is welcome news, but falls short of the $500 million needed considering that these schools have grown exponentially over the past year.

I am hopeful that the Governor’s budget plan signifies a renewed interest in public education. But it’s high time he settles this ten-year-old debt. New York State must deliver the entire $4.4 billion in CFE funding it owes in order to truly do right by our children. Their futures deserve no less.

Read more here.

Ny1: Touring Daniel Dromm’s District

  By , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NY1 VIDEO: The Road to City Hall’s Errol Louis visited City Councilman Daniel Dromm’s 25th city council district in Queens.

No comments

Ecuatoriana juramenta como jueza

  By , ,


Por El Correo:
Antes de culminar el año la abogada ecuatoriana Carmen Velázquez juramentó como nueva jueza de la Corte Civil de Queens. En una ceremonia histórica, por ser la primera ecuatoriana y sudamericana en vestir la toga de juez en los Estados Unidos, Velázquez, describió el largo recorrido que le tocó cruzar para convertirse en magistrada. Hicieron uso de la palabra, ante el panel de jueces de Queens que se dieron cita a la ceremonia, y ante abogados colegas de Velázquez y amigos y familiares de ésta, el líder de los demócratas de Queens, Joseph Crowley, los asambleístas José Peralta, Michael Den Dekker, y los líderes distritales Ellen Raffaele, Danny Dromm y Dorothy Phelan, entre otras personalidades.