{"id":52347,"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-4.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"joanna-grossman-archive-4","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/joanna-grossman-archive-4.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 BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUSH FOR SINGLE-SEX EDUCATION:
AN ATTEMPT TO ERODE FEDERAL GENDER EQUALITY \n\nGUARANTEES?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman argues that we \n\nshould be troubled by recent indications that the Department of Education’s \n\nOffice for Civil Rights will attempt to change the law to make single-sex \n\neducation programs easier to adopt — allowing, for instance, more single-sex \n\nclasses in public schools. Grossman contends that the OCR should pay more \n\nattention to constitutional limitations, and that the changes may, in the \n\nend, be bad news for young women and girls.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jun. 11, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AN ISSUE RIPE FOR SUPREME COURT REVIEW:
A DECISION UPHOLDING MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL’S RACE-BASED ADMISSION PLAN CREATES AN EVEN CIRCUIT SPLIT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a \n\nrecent federal appeals court decision regarding an important issue: Is a \n\nrace-based admissions plan for higher education ever constitutional, and if \n\nso, when? The recent decision, which approved Michigan Law School’s plan, \n\nand another, earlier federal appeals court decision — have said that such \n\nplans can indeed be constitutional, and that ensuring diversity is a \n\ncompelling interest that justifies taking race into account. However, two \n\nother federal Circuits have reached very different holdings. The issue is \n\nthus primed for the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, May. 20, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE:
DO EMPLOYERS’ EFFORTS TRULY PREVENT HARASSMENT, OR JUST PREVENT LIABILITY?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman takes issue with \n\na line of Supreme Court cases that set forth what an employer must do to \n\nestablish the affirmative defense that enables it to avoid liability for \n\nsexual harassment. Drawing on survey evidence and evidence about the effects \n\nof anti-harassment training (which is not currently required), Grossman \n\ncontends that these cases do not require employers to do enough in order to \n\ntake advantage of the defense.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, May. 07, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAN A WOMAN SUE FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION IF SHE IS FIRED BECAUSE HER BOSS’S WIFE IS JEALOUS?
A NEW YORK COURT SAYS NO, BUT THE ANSWER SHOULD BE YES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman considers a \n\nrecent New York decision, in which the an appeals court ruled in favor of a \n\ndoctor who fired his pregnant secretary because of his wife’s irrational \n\nbelief that he might have fathered the secretary’s baby. According to the \n\ncourt, the firing constituted neither sex discrimination nor pregnancy \n\ndiscrimination; rather, it was, at most, disloyalty to a valued secretary. \n\nGrossman argues, however, that firings that result from employers’ wives’ \n\njealousy, whether rational or irrational, are indeed discriminatory.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Apr. 23, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SHOULD THE LAW BE KINDER TO “KISSIN’ COUSINS”?:
A GENETIC REPORT SHOULD CAUSE A RETHINKING OF INCEST LAWS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the \n\npotential legal consequences of a new report that cousin marriages present \n\nonly slightly greater genetic risk to children. Grossman examines the \n\njustifications, genetic and otherwise, for the taboo against cousin marriage \n\nand other incest taboos, and considers whether a constitutional challenge to \n\ncousin marriage bans, based in part on the new report, could succeed.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Apr. 08, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IN A DECISION REJECTING A TRANSSEXUAL’S MARITAL UNION, KANSAS EMBRACES TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE – OR DOES IT?<\/a>\n\n
\nThe Kansas Supreme Court recently voided a marriage between a male-to-female \ntranssexual and a biological male — and therefore held that the transsexual \nwas not entitled to a $1.25 million spousal share of her late husband’s \nestate. FindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman \ndiscusses the ironies of the decision, which, she argues, claims to respect \ntraditional marriage but may actually decimate it.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Mar. 26, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAN THE FIFTY STATES’ GRANDPARENT VISITATION STATUTES SURVIVE IN THE WAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN TROXEL V. GRANVILLE?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the ramifications for the states of the Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. Granville, which invalidated the State of Washington’s third-party visitation statute. That statute had broadly authorized courts to order parents to allow third parties, such as grandparents, to visit their children even over the parents’ objection. Although the Court specifically noted certain states’ statutes with approval in Troxel, other states, and state courts, are trying to work out their own responses to Troxel. Grossman explains the issues and the recent response by New York courts.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Mar. 12, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TWO NEW, BUT OPPOSING, DEVELOPMENTS FOR GAY AND LESBIAN PARENTS:
A PEDIATRICIANS’ GROUP SUPPORTS GAY RELATIONSHIPS, BUT A GEORGIA COURT DOES NOT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman asks and answers some provocative questions: Does, and should, the law allow noncustodial parents to have their same-sex partners stay overnight during periods of visitation with their children — a result a Georgia court forbade? And what are the potential legal implications if a pediatricians’ group’s recent stance in favor of co-parenting for the children of homosexual individuals is widely accepted?\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Feb. 12, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS THE CONTINUING VIOLATIONS DOCTRINE, IN A DECISION SURE TO AFFECT MANY PARTIES TO HARASSMENT CASES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a case recently heard by the Supreme Court, which poses the following question: Can incidents of discrimination that fall outside the statute of limitation still be part of a federal employment discrimination suit, as long as they are part of a pattern of conduct some of which did occur within the statute of limitations? Courts have been all over the map on this issue; Grossman describes all of the different approaches they have employed, and argues that the Court should indeed allow the whole pattern of discriminatory conduct, not just the part within the limitations period, to form the basis of a suit. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jan. 29, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FAULT-BASED DIVORCE IS ALIVE AND WELL IN NEW YORK,\n AS TWO RECENT DECISIONS SHOW<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses how a court in New York — traditionally one of the most conservatives states when it comes to divorce — addressed two recent cases raising the same question: How bad does a spouse’s conduct have to be to constitute “cruelty” sufficient to allow the other spouse to procure a fault-based divorce? Grossman also provides a brief history of divorce in America, explaining how fault-based divorce frequently gave way to, or was paired with, no-fault divorce in many states, and what the results have been.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jan. 15, 2002<\/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