Issue Position: Statement on Civil Rights

Issue Position

Issue Position: Statement on Civil Rights

In his 17 years as an attorney in private practice, Phil has handled cases for employees who have been the victims of discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and whistleblower activity. Phil has protected workers rights to overtime and the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He has represented women who have been victims of sexual harassment, who have lost their pensions in violation of ERISA, who have been denied equal pay for equal work, and whose family and medical leave rights have been violated. Phil is particularly well known for his work in what are called "first amendment retaliation" cases, that is, employees fired for expressing their views in the workplace, and for workers denied due process of law.

Many of Phil's cases have been brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was originally passed to protect freed slaves from having their federal constitutional rights denied by the States. This critically important statute protects all of us from having our constitutional rights infringed by government and those who conspire with government.

For example, Phil's cases have involved the following allegations:

• Lou: School District Athletic Director whose job was eliminated in retaliation for writing a letter to the School Board critical of its handling of the football program

• Angela: School cafeteria worker whose job was eliminated in retaliation for a speech she gave at a School Board meeting criticizing the school budget.

• Marie: Investigator who lost her job because she objected to being solicited to attend a political fundraiser.

• Jim: School intervention worker fired without a hearing in violation of his right to due process of law.

• Manny: Restaurant worker denied access to racetrack without a hearing.

• Marcine: Teacher who won a hearing only to have the same baseless charges brought over and over again in violation of her right to due process of law.

• Candi: Health insurance worker who lost her job because she took federally protected family leave to care for her sick daughter.

• Helen: Clerk terminated from employment due to supermorbid obesity.

• Maggie: Scientist retaliated against for making a claim of race discrimination.

• Judy: Bank President who was replaced by a man who was paid a higher wage in violation of the Equal Pay Act.

• Renee: Dental hygienist who lost her pension when her employer invested the funds in highly speculative stocks.

• Bob: Floral salesman with diabetes terminated due to his alleged inability to operate a company-owned vehicle.

• Melissa: Employee terminated due to same-sex relationship with member of management.

• Hong: Victim of sexual groping in the workplace.

• Sue: Victim of improper touching and other harassment in the workplace.

• Angela: Finance worker whose supervisor discriminated against her for taking leave to undergo fertility treatments.

• Rose: Insurance agent terminated after a long history of being subjected to sex discrimination.

• Bob: Teacher discriminated against because of protected union activity.

• Joe B.: Teacher's aide discriminated against because of protected union activity.

Phil's everyday work experience shows a natural affinity and empathy for all Americans whose civil rights have been violated, whether in employment or otherwise. Phil knows we need to reform federal labor and civil rights laws so that pensions are protected from evisceration in bankruptcy proceedings, so that protection under Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1964) is extended to protect sexual orientation and gender identity, and so that whistleblowers are given comprehensive protection without loopholes.

Phil knows that hate crimes are a civil rights issue as well. We need enhanced penalties for criminals who target victims on the basis of age, race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or political activity.

Phil strongly believes in the right to privacy. A woman has the right to control over her own body, and decisions that relate to that, such as whether or not to have an abortion. These are private matters for the woman to decide for herself in consultation with her physician and her ethical or religious advisor. Phil recognizes that America is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation in which opinions on these matters will always differ. Consequently, he does not support efforts to use government to impose any particular viewpoint on the abortion issue on all Americans and he opposes States' efforts to limit a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

Phil is opposed to any attempt by the federal government to interfere in State's laws on marriage. He is a supporter both of Equality of Marriage (for all couples who desire marriage), including parental and adoption rights, and of Civil Union (to assure equal benefits to persons with a history of cohabitating together who do not desire marriage). The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that any marriage legal in one state be respected and enforced in any other state.

In the arena of international civil rights, Phil is a strong opponent of any justification for torture. The United States Courts have long ruled that international law should be incorporated into our legal fabric as a part of our own law. Therefore, the United States must adhere to all aspects of the Geneva Convention.

Phil opposes much of the new FISA law. He does not support retroactive immunity for any industry, such as telecoms, that violates the law. And, because judicial power may be abused like any other, he does not support secret courts.

But, as bad as they are, the immunity provisions are not even the worst aspect of the FISA revisions. For example, the new FISA revisions extend the time under which the National Security Administration may conduct a wiretap from 72 hours to a week. No need has been demonstrated to increase this time period. Second, the bill gives wholesale approval to bulk monitoring of electronic communications (primarily email and phone calls). This monitoring is based on software algorithms of dubious validity that supposedly determine whether or not a person's behavior patterns suggest that he or she is acting in a way that merits eavesdropping.

This concept, which is really a form of profiling, flies in the face of our longstanding mandates of probable cause and reasonable suspicion that require attention to individual circumstances. There is no conceivable constitutional basis for this type of surveillance.

Source