{"id":52346,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/joanna-grossman-archive-3.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"joanna-grossman-archive-3","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/joanna-grossman-archive-3.html","title":{"rendered":"Joanna Grossman Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Legal Commentary: Joanna Grossman Archive<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n

THE VIRTUES OF VIRTUAL PARENTING:
CAN THE INTERNET \n REPLACE VISITATION WHEN A CUSTODIAL PARENT RELOCATES?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent New Jersey case that raises an interesting question: Could Internet communication using webcams, instant messages, e-mails, and so on, count towards a noncustodial parent’s visitation schedule with his or her child? If so, it may be easier for custodial parents to get court permission to move with their children to a distant state over a noncustodial parent’s objection.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Dec. 18, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

A CALIFORNIA COURT TAKES A STAND AGAINST SEXUAL \n HARASSMENT, MAKING A STATE LAW CLAIM EASIER TO BRING \nTHAN A FEDERAL CLAIM<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman examines the latest ruling on an issue that has been dividing state courts nationwide: Should state courts interpreting state sexual harassment laws follow the precedent of federal courts interpreting Title VII, and allow employers to escape liability for supervisors’ harassment if they can prove that they had an anti-harassment policy and the harassed employee took too long to complain? At the end of November, a California court said no. Grossman discusses both the pros and cons of the ruling, and the ins and outs of the law.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Dec. 04, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DO PRISONERS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROCREATE VIA \n FEDEX?
A RECENT APPEALS COURT RULING SAYS YES, BUT THE \n SUPREME COURT MAY DISAGREE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent substantive due process ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court held that a prison cannot constitutionally both deny conjugal visits to male inmates, and also prevent them from FedExing sperm to their wives for artificial insemination. Grossman also considers implications for female prisoners who wish to become pregnant.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Nov. 20, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

A TWIST ON THE PROBLEM OF SEX INEQUALITY IN COACHING:
A MALE COACH WHO WAS REJECTED AS COACH OF A WOMEN’S TEAM SUES AND WINS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist Joanna Grossman discusses a recent, successful “reverse \ndiscrimination” suit against the University of Pennsylvania, brought by a \nmale coach who sought to coach the women’s crew team. Grossman explains the \nlaw governing the male coach’s claim — as well as the law governing sex \ndiscrimination claims by female coaches who seek to coach men’s teams. \n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Nov. 06, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

WHO GETS THE ENGAGEMENT RING WHEN THE WEDDING IS OFF?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman answers the perennial question, Can I get the ring back? (or, from a different perspective, Can he get the ring back?) Grossman explains why courts might see an engagement ring as part of a contract, a gift, or the transfer of a symbolic token, respectively. She also uses a recent New York case to explore the complexities of engagement ring law.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Oct. 23, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE ADOPTABILITY OF ABANDONED BABIES:
\nA RECENT NEW YORK CASE INTERPRETS THE STATE’S “BABY MOSES” LAW<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses a recent New York case interpreting the State’s “Baby Moses law,” which immunizes from prosecution those mothers who abandon their babies at a safe haven where the babies can be cared for. Grossman explains why the Baby Moses laws, which now exist in thirty-five states, have proven to be a poor fit with many states’ laws of adoption.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Oct. 09, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE PROBLEM WITH PLAYING THE BLAME GAME\n WITH RESPECT TO THE SEPTEMBER 11 TRAGEDY<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman critiques the recent comments by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Louisiana Congressman Cooksey that suggested the terrorist acts of September 11 are the fault of groups within our own society. Using our own legal system as a guide, Grossman explains why we should be careful about placing blame, particularly on Arab-Americans.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Sep. 25, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ANOTHER INROAD INTO AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT:
\n CONNECTICUT’S RULING THAT AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S \n DISCHARGE DUE TO PREGNANCY IS WRONGFUL<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses an intriguing recent Connecticut decision. In the ruling, an appellate court allowed a woman who alleged that she was fired because she became pregnant to sue her employer — even though she was an at-will employee who worked without a contract, and the business was too small to be covered by anti-discrimination statutes. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Sep. 11, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

SAME-SEX HARASSMENT AFTER THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION\nIN ONCALE:\n A RECENT TEXAS CASE ILLUSTRATES THE ISSUES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent Texas case of male-male harassment as a window into how cases of same-sex harassment are litigated today, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 1998 Oncale decision. Oncale held that same-sex harassment is prohibited by Title VII, the federal anti-discrimination statute, but only if the harassment is “because of sex.”\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Aug. 28, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE COST OF HITTING YOUR WIFE WITH A BARBELL:\n FAULT AND THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a \nrecent New York decision in which a husband who had hit his wife with a \nbarbell forfeited virtually his entire share of their marital property in \ntheir divorce proceedings. Grossman uses the case as a window into a \ndiscussion of the role of fault in both divorce itself, and the property \ndivisions it necessitates.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Aug. 14, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n