Chinese Immigrant Seeks Asylum From Persecution

By Romilda Perfidio



Jian Lian Guo, a Chinese native living in Manhattan, escaped her country on January 3, 2000, for fear of religious persecution when she converted to Christianity. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) charged her with removability shortly after her non-valid entry to the United States. After 9/11, the INS’s functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security within the U.S. Department of Justice.

Guo requested asylum but was denied by an Immigration Judge. The judge concluded Guo’s story was not reliable based on credibility. She claimed she was teaching Sunday school and was discovered by government officials but eluded them and fled the country, according to the third circuit appeals opinion docket. She tried to appeal her case on October 29, 2002, but the Board of Immigration also denied the appeal.

During the appeal process Guo married and bore a son. She issued a motion to reopen her case on January 21, 2003, claiming “intervening developments,” according to the docket. China has a family planning policy that allows for one child per family. By now, Guo was pregnant with her second child. She feared returning to China would subject her to the country’s sterilization policy and/or penalties for having more than one child. Guo’s motion to reopen was denied on January 16, 2003, stating she failed to establish a “well- rounded fear,” according to the third circuit court of appeals opinion docket.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act states, an individual qualifies for asylum if he/she is “unable” or “unwilling” to return to their country because of “persecution or a well- rounded fear on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The burden of proof lies with the applicant to show eligibility based on facts and credible testimony. Gou must show a well-rounded fear based on three facts. She has a fear of persecution if she returns to her native land, there is a possibility she will be persecuted upon return to her country and lastly, she is unwilling to return as a result of her fear.

Gou brought her case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on October 25, 2004. Joshua Barvaid, Esquire and Theodore Cox, Esquire of the Theodore Cox Law Firm in New York were the lead attorneys on the case. The Department of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration, represented the respondents.

Cox, who deals mainly with Immigration cases and who has owned his own law firm for 11 years, said this was a “difficult appeal” in a telephone interview. He filed a motion to reopen Gou’s case based on two arguments: “primae facie” – if the case was reopened she would be eligible for asylum, and second, the Board erred in the “credibility determination,” according to Cox.

Cox was successful in his appeal to the Supreme Court and the motion to reopen Gou’s case was granted. He confirmed if Gou was sent back to China there was a “reasonable possibility she would be sterilized.”

Once the motion is granted it takes about a year for the case to go from the circuit courts back to the Immigration Courts, according to Cox. However he is confident and “expects good results” from the Immigration courts.

Immigration officials could not be reached for comments on the decision or future court case.

This is not the first “big case” the Cox Law firm has argued and won. Last February they argued a case of religious persecution of a Chinese citizen in the second court of appeals and won. The court ruled the State Department’s human rights analysis “may not give the most accurate picture,” according to an article by Law.com.

Freedom of What??

Turns out that young folks today don't seem to think the First Amendment is a "big deal." Before the network news anchors and radio talk show hosts either ignore this or turn it into snappy patter, it's worth reflecting about:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/31/students.amendment.ap/index.html

For the full study, check out this link:

http://www.firstamendmentfuture.org/main.html

See you in class.

Former Maryland Prosecutor receives six-figure sum in libel case against a newspaper

Liz Quinn (eq24)

Marc E. Mandel, Plaintiff v. The Boston Phoenix Inc., ET Al., Defendants
Civil Case
Former Maryland Prosecutor receives six-figure sum in libel case against a newspaper Boston Phoenix published the article titled “Children at Risk,” by Kristen Lombardi, which revealed the failure of family courts to deal with allegations of child abuse. The article included allegations that then Baltimore County, Maryland, prosecutor Marc Mandel
On January 7, 2005 A federal jury in Boston awarded a former Maryland prosecutor, Marc E. Mandel $ 950,000.00 after a newspaper reported allegations of child abuse. The verdict in this case raises the question of whether newspapers will feel threatened by the fear of a suit when it comes to of covering news public importance.
In January 2003, The Boston Phoenix published the article titled “Children at Risk,” by Kristen Lombardi, which revealed the failure of family courts to deal with allegations of child abuse. The article included allegations that then Baltimore County, Maryland, prosecutor Marc Mandel, who at the time was involved in a bitter divorce and custody dispute, had sexually abused his children.
Mandel filed a complaint on June 9th, 2004, against the defendant The Boston Phoenix, Inc. Mandel claimed that the article subtitled “Losing custody to a child molester,” referred to him and called him a child molester. According to the complaint filed, Mandel claims, that “the article further defames him by stating that he had assaulted his daughter from his first marriage and that he is a man who Baltimore, Maryland child-protection workers believe is a child molester.”
Mandel said, “When I saw the article I was devastated. I felt like they destroyed my life. I actually started crying. It was horrible.”
The editor of the Boston Phoenix, Peter Kadzis, was not available for comment.
The Phoenix’s response was that the nature of Mandel’s position as an Assistant State’s Attorney for the state of Maryland rendered him a public official. As a public official, the burden of proof was on Mandel to establish clear and convincing proof that what was published was actually defamatory and printed with “actual malice”. The Phoenix cited New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1974) which states that public officials and public figures cannot recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and that it was made with “actual malice.” The Phoenix cited New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1974) which states that public officials and public figures cannot recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove that the statement was false, and that it was made with “actual malice.”
The court determined that not every public employee is a public official for defamation purposes. According to the context of libel law, only those employees with substantial responsibility for the conduct of government affairs are deemed public officials citing Kassel v. Gannett Co., 875 F.2d 935, 939 (1st Cir. 1989).
According to the motion for summary judgment, “Mandel did not serve as a policy maker, administrator or supervisor. As an Assistant State’s Attorney, he was the lowest-level prosecutor in the Maryland court system. He fell below the middle of the organization chart. He did not routinely supervise, manage, or direct government operations. Mandel’s position simply did not invite public scrutiny and discussion.”
Judge Edward F. Harrington ruled that Mandel was not a public official for purposes of the lawsuit, and therefore did not need to prove actual malice. Harrington declared that the paper knew or had to reason to believe the statements made were false and the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for libel.
A jury found the newspaper liable and awarded Mandel $ 950,000 last month.
The paper has asked Harrington to nullify the award or grant a new trial, claiming that the award was too large, and that the statements made in the paper were not libelous. According to what was cited in New York Times v. Sullivan, Mandel fit the criteria stated and was indeed a public official required to prove “actual malice.”
Phoenix attorney, Daniel J. Gleason, argued in court documents that although Mandel was ruled not a public official before the trial because he held an ordinary non-public job, at trial Mandel relied on the public nature of his job to show he had been damaged by the article.
The firm Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP, specializes in providing legal service to various corporations, and companies. They practice international law, litigation, real estate and finance, healthcare, labor and employment, tax, and trusts and estates and many other areas related to large businesses. They are located in the New England area. According to Rebecca L. Shuffain, legal assistant to Daniel J. Gleason, the firm handles libel cases off and on. The Mandel v. Boston Phoenix Inc. case is currently between trial and appeal. It is in the pre-appeal phase. They have 30 days to appeal to a higher court.
Daniel J. Gleason has experience in cases dealing with First Amendment media litigation, business litigation, environmental insurance disputes, and product liability, in addition to other areas relating to corporate law.
According to Mandel, the defendant, The Boston Phoenix, Inc. filed on Jan. 18th three post -judgment motions and they were all denied by the trial judge. The defense argued nonobstante verdicto or notwithstanding the verdict. Mandel said, “ They argued I was a public official which changed the burden of proof.”
Mandel said at this stage the trial is over. There is no settlement. Once the jury renders a decision there is nothing to settle. The time for settlement is before or during the trial. The defense can request two weeks after the judgment that the case go back to trial court. If it goes to a higher court by law the newspaper cannot ask him to settle or they might end up owing Mandel over 3 million dollars.
Mandel said if the case goes to appeal they will rehash the contention of whether he was actually a public official, while a prosecutor in Maryland. Mandel said, “The allegations had nothing to do with anything. They have some hurdles to get over. It was all about a man getting custody of his children. It had nothing to do with me as a prosecutor. The public official dispute was an afterthought on their part.”
Marc E. Mandel, LLC, is currently a private practice lawyer in Maryland. He handles cases in everything from bankruptcy law to criminal and business matters. He handles family law, juvenile, DUI Defense, alimony, personal injury and many other areas of the law.

EYES OF A COURT REPORTING TIGER

By Hector Rodriguez
Independent Student Reporter

PHILADELPHIA, PA – No longer are courts the sterile environments of olden days. The new wave of technology such as digital cameras and wireless transfer of information has meant that courts have had to adjust the practice of admitting reporters into the court and protecting the validity of the case as well.

On January 24, 2005, the President of the PA Court Reporters Association (CRA), James DeCrescenzo, RDR, CRR, CLVS, commented on the state of courts with regards to journalists. While he has 34 years of court reporting experience, DeCrescenzo serves still as a freelance reporter, and is the owner of James DeCrescenzo Reporting in Philadelphia. Through a phone interview, he presented a modern, realistic view of the court system and the way reporters are affected.

For starters, DeCrescenzo explains that most of the work performed by court reporters is done at what is known as depositions. These are pre-trial examinations under oath, in which both attorneys ask questions of the plaintiff and defendant to assess the claims to injury, be it physical, emotional, or monetary. DeCrescenzo calls this the “discovery phase” since this is also where attorneys determine the strength of the argument. The importance of the preliminary hearing is that “95% of court cases settle,” saving time and even money.

Then, DeCrescenzo gives weight to the physical environment of a court room. He cites City Hall as an example. “City Hall is built over a subway system. The court room has a tendency to shake and makes it difficult to use and understand audio devices, especially with the 30-foot high ceilings which ruin the acoustics.” He also notes the lack of central air conditioning, in which AC window units still reign supreme. Reporters in this situation are relied upon to create a verbatim record which becomes part of the court record as well, and can even be the basis of appeals, says the PA CRA President.

Technology plays a big role in overcoming nasty environments. In the late 1980’s, court reporters were the first to use transcriptions of synchronized audio. DeCrescenzo explains it as multiple recordings of the same conversation from varying spots in the room, so that even if two or more people spoke at the same time, the recordings could isolate one voice for ease of transcription.

More efficient is the recent emergence of Real Time technology. This is best described by the U.S. Department of Labor as “stenotype machines used for real time captioning are linked directly to the computer. As the reporter keys in the symbols, they instantly appear as text on the screen. This process is used in courts, in classrooms, at meetings, and for closed captioning for the hearing-impaired on television.” Essentially, we have computer assisted transcriptions.

One of the barriers to effective court reporting remains a lack of funding says the PA CRA President. More and more work is expected from fewer employees and with fewer resources. The economy is a limiting factor, since low rates make the profession less attractive. However, there still exist benefits such as travel. DeCrescenzo cites England, Canada, China and Luxemburg as just a few of the countries where he has been able to visit and make use of his experience in court reporting.

CIVIL CASE REPORT by Geofree Capodanno

New Mexico Scorpions sued by former employees
by Geofree Capodanno


ALBUQUERQUE - Five former employees of the New Mexico Scorpions ice hockey team are currently in a battle with their former employers over allegations of racial and sexual discrimination due to events occurring during the team’s 2001-2002 season. The Scorpions’ award-winning community relations and sales representative Rosann Williams, box office manager Kaye Hunter, pro shop employee Mia Marquart, former player and assistant coach Rob Haddock, and team controller Moira Daly, filed the suit against several members of the Scorpions’ organization in the State of New Mexico Second Judicial District Court in September of 2003. The trial will take place in March of 2005. The Defendants include the owner of W.D. Sports NM, Inc. William Douglas Frank, General Manager Patrick Dunn, Community Liaison Tyler Boucher, new General Manager Daniel Burgers, Vice President of Finance and Administration Bruce Levine, W.D. Sports N.M. Inc., and the New Mexico Scorpions.

WD Sports N.M. Inc. purchased the Scorpions with Defendant Frank taking over as the team’s President. Then, Frank named Defendant Dunn as the team’s General Manager. The other Defendants, Burgers and Levine, were hired later throughout the course of the season. Plaintiff Williams was already employed with the team while fellow Plaintiffs Hunter, Daly, Haddock, and Marquart were hired after the team purchase.

According to the suit, two of the Defendants, Boucher and Dunn, regularly made lewd comments about the female Plaintiffs, referring to them as “f*cking b*tches”. Another instance stated in the complaint was that Dunn and Boucher openly referred to women as “slits” and “peelers”. At one point, Boucher had allegedly called Williams a “b*tch” and a “donkey” in front of her interns, Dunn, and even ticket holders. Aside from sexual comments, the female Plaintiffs allege that male employees were given higher salary wages than they received for doing the same tasks. When problems such as these were reported to Frank, he did absolutely nothing to rectify them.

As for Haddock, he claims that he had dealt with racial discrimination from the organization in the complaint. Haddock, who also served as a sales representative among his other duties, was denied the use of a company car, a cell phone, a computer, and a desk phone like all of the other sales representatives. He also claimed that when he complained about these instances, his abuse worsened. After assisting Williams in the sharing of her accounts due to his complaints being unresolved, Boucher asked her why she was helping a “n*gger”. Haddock was later fired by the team. Boucher allegedly said that Haddock was terminated because he was a “n*gger’ and a “f*g” while standing near a season ticket holder.

Williams’ termination followed shortly after. As mentioned before, she was a Scorpions’ award-winning community relations and sales representative. Now, she had to file a discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claim with the New Mexico Human Rights Division. She claimed that the Defendants’ attorney, John Phillips, threatened to ruin her reputation by implanting lies due to this action.

Hunter resigned from her position in March of 2002 due to her own claims abuse by the Scorpions staff. She stated that Dunn and Boucher both made jokes to her about women being in sexual acts, such as spreading their legs to help them practice putting. Hunter also claimed that Dunn had openly discussed nicknaming his wife “The Dominator”, after hockey goalie Dominik Hasek, due to being repeatedly being “shutout” or refused for sex.

These are just a few of the many abusive incidents that the Plaintiffs claimed they endured that season. Other allegations stemmed from the Scorpions’ hiring of a new General Manager, Defendant Daniel Burgers, who replaced Dunn. Burgers is accused of maintaining the same atmosphere provided when former General Manger Dunn was held the title. Marquart stated that he asked her why she didn’t work at one of the local strip clubs as well as making sexual advances towards her. She also claimed that she was forced to work in an office with no heating, which resulted in asthma complications and chronic bronchitis.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website, Daly explained her struggles with the treatment by the Defendants. "The worst thing for me was not being able to do anything about it," said Daly. "I had employees in my office crying and I knew from prior complaints to the team's owner and General Manager that nothing would be done." Daly states that she was told to take a considerable demotion for a lower pay than her starting salary. She also claimed that Burgess offered for her to be his personal assistant to “close” deals because she was attractive. Daly was discharged after refusing the offer.

Finally, Marquart stated that she felt alone since Williams, Daly, Hunter, and Haddock were already gone from the organization. She resigned after being ordered to train a new employee and subsequently getting demoted to be his assistant.

According to the ACLU press advisory, the lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the New Mexico Human Rights Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as defamation and retaliatory discharge. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief to prevent future violations.

The ACLU is lending its support on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The ACLU, who usually assists in government issues and not against cases concerning private companies, is providing its representation in this case is due to the plight of the Plaintiffs. In a telephone interview, ACLU Executive Director of New Mexico Peter Simonson explains, “We felt moved because of the constant sexual harassment, lewd jokes, and comments these people had to suffer day after day.” He continued to explain, “With such a hostile working environment, we felt like we needed to get involved.”

Simonson said that the ACLU felt a different reason for its organization to get involved as well. “The Scorpions are a high profile team here,” said Simonson. “The Plaintiffs were going to feel extreme pressure from the media and the press because the Scorpions have such a large following and support. We wanted to support them on a moral standard.” He talked about precedent being set on a different level. “The only precedent that we would like to have set by this case is drawing more attention to these discriminatory racial and gender dynamics partial of the sports environment. There have been several other cases in New Mexico relating to these kinds of discrimination and we want to see these kinds of instances come to an end.”

Simonson also stated that an effort to reach a settlement was made in October and November through conferences. The Plaintiffs declined and that is why the case is headed to a jury trial in March. “These five individuals loved their jobs under the old management and were always strong supporters of the team,” Simonson explained. “They felt that they were breaking their bond with the Scorpions because practices in the workplace changed with the new management.”

Maureen Sanders, the ACLU of New Mexico Co-Legal Director, entered the case and shares Simonson’s views on behalf of the ACLU. On the ACLU website, Sanders explained, "While the ACLU rarely enters cases against private employers, the stories of sexual and racial discrimination involved here are so shocking and well-documented that we felt a duty to lend our assistance. Hopefully, the attention that ACLU involvement brings to this case will send a signal that sexual and racial harassment in professional sports will not be tolerated."

Katy Hammel, of The Hammel Law Firm, P.C., is the ACLU Cooperating Attorney who has taken pro bono representation of the Plaintiffs. She understands the long term damages due to her clients’ mistreatment. She feels strongly about the justification of her clients’ suit as well. In the article on the ACLU website, Hammel stated, "Abusive work situations can be devastating, especially for people who love their jobs. These employees were true hockey fans. They were proud to be a part of the Scorpions. One of them even had her lower leg tattooed with the figure of a scorpion holding a hockey stick. These employees did not deserve to lose their jobs because they could not tolerate being called 'b*tches' and 'donkeys' and 'n*gger.’”


The Defendants and their attorney, John Phillips, were not able to be reached for comments or reactions to the case.

Interviewing a Reporter

Daniela DePaola
COM380-002
Interview a Reporter

The person I chose to interview is Sarah Fisher. Sarah is a reporter at “The Review,” which is the local paper for Roxborough/Manayunk. I asked Sarah to tell me about a case she had covered, and then to tell me a little bit about how and why she went about covering it the way she did.
This case was in Easton, and involved all juvenile offenders. Sarah was given this case by her editor to cover, but she says she was a little discouraged because she knew it would be hard to get information due to the fact that all parties involved were minors. As it turned out the courts had closed this case because of the fact that the only witness was a juvenile, but Sarah worked it out so that she could sit in the minor’s testimony.
Basically, there were four minors involved. Three of the juveniles were 17 years old. The group of 17 years olds consisted of two boys and one girl. The fourth juvenile was a 14 year old boy, who was also the brother of the 17 year old who got shot. The three 17 year olds were running a heroin ring in Easton. One of the boys had come up short on his payments for the week. The way the other two decided to resolve this was by going to his house. The only ones at the 17 year old boy’s home were him and his brother. When the other two arrived at the home they went up stairs. The one boy shot the other boy, whose house they were in. When the boy was shot he fell down the steps to where his 14 year old brother was.
The brother was the only witness to this shooting. Sarah was only allowed to sit in for the testimony from this boy. Due to this fact she decided to use undisclosed sources when she wrote her story because she did not want to reveal the names of any of the juveniles involved.
Ultimately, the 17 year old boy who was the shooter was found guilty and convicted for 20 years to life, but the girl was going to have a separate trial because she was not the actual shooter. The girl was being used as a second witness and was charged with accessory to murder.
Sarah gave me some tips for covering a case. She says to always carry your press pass if you’re trying to get anywhere near a closed court room, and always use alleged unless the police state something different in their records. By always using police records as proof then you can avoid getting into a lot of trouble.

A Reporter’s View on Covering Legal Cases

by Romilda Perfidio


Pete McCarthy recently accepted a position with the Gloucester County Times, in Woodbury, NJ. He has worked for the Times for about a week. We recently spoke on the phone about his previous coverage of legal cases.

McCarthy worked as a legal correspondent for over three years for The Bridgeton News, in Bridgeton, NJ. He covered trial cases and fortunately had little obstacles in his gathering of information.


McCarthy claims, “It depends on who you’re dealing with." He says he sometimes faced opposition with getting information from lawyers, but for the most part it wasn’t difficult. McCarthy contributes this to the fact that he worked for a small paper. He says, “it’s not really an issue with local papers.”

I asked McCarthy his opinion of high profile cases and how they have changed news coverage. He claims, “It really wasn’t an issue and did not come up."

He was not very forthcoming in our telephone conversation and was reluctant to speak with me about legal cases. In all, seven reporters were contacted; two from the Philadelphia Inquirer, two from the Courier Post, one from the Philadelphia Weekly, one from Philly News and Pete McCarthy. He was the only reporter who responded to my inquiry.

Report on an interview with Cynthia Burton by Geofree Capodanno

I had the pleasure of interviewing Cynthia Burton this past weekend for my report. Cynthia is a news reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer and has been news reporting for the past 26 years.

When I asked her about some of the challenges she experienced in covering cases, she supplied me with her personal list. First, she told me that in the Philadelphia courts, reporters are not allowed to bring recording devices with them. She also mentioned that this where one has to learn how to take great hand notes for reporting. Another factor that she mentioned was that seating was hard to obtain in high profile cases, so one has to get there very early to guarantee seating. The last challenge that she mentioned was boredom. The monotony of the process dealing with questioning, re-questioning, et cetera is a task in itself. Going throw these motions, time and time again, while trying to illuminate a story with such standard information for each case can be difficult.

The next question I asked Cynthia dealt with any changes that she had seen in the legal system. She told me that judges now work full days and, in turn, trials move more quickly. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the press really put heat on the judges to work full days and how there were too many delays. Cynthia says that now things have gotten better in that aspect.

The final question that I had asked her pertained to any kind of different experiences she had in covering cases. She mentioned a 1985 case in which Mayor W. Wilson Goode had ordered that a C-4 bomb be dropped on a bunker atop the housing of MOVE, an anti-government organization. The bomb had killed several people and only criminal charges were filed against one survivor, Ramona Africa, who fled the chaos with her son. Mysteries were unraveled in the testimonies throughout the entire case pertaining to the motive of the bombing and how Ramona explained that the bombing was unwarranted. At one point, Ramona had Goode take the stand and asked if he was a liar because it seemed that he had trouble telling the truth in this matter.

Another case she mentioned was the Lex Street Massacre from 2000, in which assailants broke into a house, murdering seven and wounded others. The police arrested the suspects and brought them to trial. The problem was that they arrested the wrong people and they were released. She told me that eventually the real criminals were brought to justice.

She also recalled the trial of mass murderer Gary Heidnik and his dirty Hawaiian shirt attire that he wore to the courtroom. It was not the standard attire for a man defending himself from a death sentence.

Cynthia Burton was very insightful and answered all of my questions very thoroughly. She even left me with a very interesting quote. As it pertains to how some media relation and public relation personnel try to hide accurate information to journalists, she said, “Never lie (to reporters). Always tell the truth because it will help things (for them) in the long run.” I guess she means that reporters hold the power of the pen. So, if you are perceived as telling untruths to reporters, you are fair game and they can write a not so nice article about you in the future.

T-Shirt Causes Uproar at Local High School

by: Jacqueline Ernest
Maplewood NJ- Susan Taylor, a student at Columbia High School (a public school) is suing the school district of Maplewood/South Orange for violating her First Amendment right to free expression. Taylor wore a t-shirt which read, “Proud to be an Atheist,” and was suspended on June 2, 2000.
According to Taylor, her history teacher, David Kasper told her that she was “going straight to hell.” Taylor was surprised by her history teacher’s response, according to Taylor, “I couldn’t believe he said that, I was just trying to express a different point of view.” Also, the principal of the high school, Jan Gorlin, demanded that Susan go to the girls’ locker room and change her shirt. Gorlin allegedly told Susan that “we all believe in God at this school- there’s no room for someone like you here.” We were able to get in contact with Gorlin who reportedly said, “I never said that to Susan. I’ve been an educator for nearly 30 years. I would never hurt a student like that.”
Taylor refused to change her shirt. The principal called her parents and had her escorted out of the building. Taylor now claims, according to the suit, that the security guard who escorted her out of the building pushed and shoved her out of the building. She was given a three week suspension which was upheld by the School District. The School District contends that school officials have the right to run the school, and to maintain order.
Taylor is suing to overturn her suspension and is also seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 in punitive damages from the school district. Taylor claims her shirt did not disrupt her classes and she should not receive the three week suspension. When speaking with her attorney, Nicholas Sullivan, he told us that the parties were working out a settlement. Sullivan also said he rejected an offer that the District insisted, which was for Taylor serve out the suspension and was never to wear the shirt at issue again.

FREE SPEECH AT THE COST OF $3.5M

By Hector Rodriguez

MAPLEWOOD, NJ – A student from Columbia High School is claiming damages of $3.5 million from the School district for wearing a shirt deemed inappropriate by school officials.

On June 2, 2000, Susan Taylor, a junior student at Columbia HS, came to school wearing a T-shirt with “Proud To Be An Atheist” emblazoned on the front. School officials were quick to respond to Taylor’s outfit and views by placing a 3 week suspension from school activities.

Historian David Kasper was the first school official to notice the shirt. He approached the student prior to their third period class and acted immediately by sending Taylor to Principal Jan Gorlin’s office. Gorlin then demanded that Taylor proceed to the girls’ locker room and change shirts. Taylor refused, citing the First Amendment right to freedom of expression on public property.

Gorlin notified Taylor’s parents and a security guard removed Taylor from the premises. The 3 week suspension was issued for disobedience and interfering with other students to perform in a friendly environment. $2.5 million is expected to come out of compensatory damages. Another part of Taylor’s defense claims that security used force to keep her out of the school building and requests an extra $1 million from punitive damages.

Taylor’s main argument for freedom of speech and expression comes from the precedent Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District of 1969. In this case, 3 high school students wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, stating that the act of wearing armbands was quiet and passive, and not inciting to a riot. Part of the ruling also states that any prohibition to such an expression of opinion without evidence that school discipline is being interfered with, or that the rights of other students are in danger, school officials can not act to ban students or articles of expression.

Taylor’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan, is working with Columbia High School in trying to work out a settlement. However, the District is insistent that Susan serve her suspension and never wear the T-shirt again on school property. Sullivan found the request unacceptable.

Proud to be an Atheist?

Proud to be an Atheist?

Susan Taylor, a junior at Columbia High School a public school in Maplewood will be sitting the next few weeks out at home instead of in school learning. It all started on June 2, 2000 when Susan decided to wear a t-shirt to school which said “Proud to be an Atheist.” Susan had made it though the first two periods of school without a hitch, but once she reached third period history that all changed.
David Kasper, Susan’s history teacher has taught at Columbia High for 22 years. It was in history class that Susan says Kasper confronter her about the T-shirt, and sent her to this principal’s office, but not before he allegedly said she was “going straight to hell.”
Susan told us “I couldn’t believe he said that. I was just trying to express a different point of view.”
Susan tells us she was then met in the office by Jan Gorlin, the school’s principal. Susan says Gorlin asked her to change her T-shirt, but when she refused Gorlin supposedly demanded. That is when Gorlin allegedly told Susan, “we all believe in God at this school- there’s no room for someone like you here.”
We spoke to Gorlin over the phone about that comment. Gorlin had this to say, “I never said that to Susan. I’ve been an educator for nearly 30 years. I would never hurt a student like that.”
When Susan continued to refuse to change her T-shirt, Gorlin called Susan’s parents, and had her removed from the building by a security guard, who Susan claims in her suit, pushed and shoved her until she was out of the building. Susan was suspended for three weeks.
Susan is suing the School District of Maplewood/South Orange for violating her First Amendment right to free expression. The suit was filed in Newark, NJ federal court on June 26, 2000. She is suing to overturn her suspension, and is also seeking $1 million in compensatory damages, and $2.5 million in punitive damages from the School District.
The School District upheld the suspension, and also answered Susan’s complaint by saying that the school officials have the right to run the school and to maintain order.
We spoke to the District attorney on the case, Eileen Bauer, who told us “The courts have no authority to manage the day-to-day operations of a school.” According to Tinker v. Des Moines School District, though the Supreme Court decided in 1969 that so long as one expresses themselves quietly and passively, does not impinge upon rights of others they cannot be forced not to wear something. The Supreme Court also stated in that opinion that “prohibition against expression…of opinion without evidence the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others” is unconstitutional.
Citing this ruling Susan claims that her T-shirt did not disrupt her cases and caused only a few comments from other students during the time she was in school on May 10 when she had previously worn the shirt to school.
Susan’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan, says the parties are trying to reach a settlement. According to Sullivan the District insists Susan serve her entire suspension and never wear the T-shirt to school again. Sullivan said he rejected the offer. Discussions will continue to try and reach a settlement, while Susan awaits a court date.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

Is Freedom of Speech Being Suppressed in High School?

Diem Lam

Newark, NJ- A junior at Columbia High School in Maplewood is suing the School District of Maplewood/South Orange for violating her First Amendment right to free expression.

The student’s problems began on June 2, 2000 when she decided to express herself with a t-shirt containing the words, “Proud to be an Atheist.” She was confronted by her teacher, David Kasper, who sent her to the principal’s office. He reportedly told her that she was “going straight to hell.”

Upon the meeting with the school’s principal, Jan Gorlin, first requested then demanded the student change her shirt in the girl’s locker room. When she refused Gorlin, he allegedly told her that “we all believe in God at this school – there’s no room for someone like you here.” Columbia High School is a public school.

Following the refusal, the student’s parents were notified and the student was removed from the building by a security guard. The student claims that she was pushed and shoved until she was out of the building. She was later suspended for three weeks.

The decision for suspension was upheld by the School District who reasoned that the school officials have a right to run the school and to maintain order. Eileen Bauer, the District’s attorney declares that, “The courts have no authority to manage the day-to-day operations of a school.”

The student is suing to overturn her suspension. She asserts that the shirt did not disrupt her classes, “Only a couple of people even noticed the shirt – I made it through two classes before Mr. Kasper saw me.” She is also seeking compensatory damages and punitive damages from the School District.

Both parties are trying to work out a settlement; however, the District insists that the student serve her entire suspension and that she never wears the t-shirt in question to school again. The student’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan has rejected the offer.

Just A T-Shirt Or a Violation of the First Amendment Right? Liz Quinn

Liz Quinn (eq24)
Civil Case: It’s Just A T-Shirt

Susan Taylor, a junior at Columbia High School in Maplewood is suing the School District of Maplewood South Orange for violating her First Amendment right to free expression. The suit was filed in Newark, NJ federal court on June 26, 2000. On June 2, 2000, Taylor wore a t-shirt with the words “Proud to be an Atheist” emblazoned on it to school.
The school’s principal, Jan Gorlin, requested, then demanded that Taylor go to the girls’ locker room and change her shirt. Gorlin allegedly said “we all believe in God at this school – there’s no room for someone like you here.”
Taylor said: “I couldn’t believe he said that. I was just trying to express a different point of view.”
Taylor refused to change her shirt, was removed from the building by a security guard and later suspended for three weeks. Taylor is suing to overturn her suspension. She is also seeking $ 1 million in compensatory damages and $ 2.5 million in punitive damages from the School District. Citing Tinker v. Des Moines School District, Taylor claims that her shirt did not disrupt her classes and caused only a few comments from other students during the time she was in school on May 10.
In response to Taylor’s complaint, the District contends that school officials have a right to run the school, and to maintain order. Taylor’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan, says the parties are trying to work out a settlement. However, the District insists that Taylor serve her entire suspension and that she never wears the t-shirt at issue to school again. Sullivan said he rejected the offer.

T-shirt Causes Question of First Amendment Rights

By: Sara Bechtold

NEWARK, NJ- A high school student sued the School district of Maplewood/South Orange for $3.5 million for violating her First Amendment right to free expression.

On June 2, 2000, Susan Taylor, a junior at Columbia High School in Maplewood, was allegedly removed from the school building by force of a security guard and suspended for three weeks because she wore the words “Proud to be an Atheist” on her t-shirt.

The t-shirt first became an issue when Taylor’s history teacher, David Kasper, sent her to the principal’s office. Taylor claims that, before Kasper, her shirt had gotten little attention and had not disrupted any of her classes. The school’s principal, Jan Gorlin, allegedly told Taylor that there was no room for her at the school because everyone there believes in God.

“I couldn’t believe he said that,” Taylor said, “I was just trying to express a different point of view.”

Gorlin later responded to the statement. “I never said that to Susan. I’ve been an educator for nearly 30 years. I would never hurt a student like that,” he said.

The School District insists that Taylor serves her entire suspension; it contends that school officials have a right to run the school and maintain order. Still, Taylor’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan, claims the parties are trying to work out a settlement.

Student Files Suit Against School District Over First Amendment Rights

Student Files Suit Against School District Over First Amendment Rights
By Geofree Capodanno

Susan Taylor, a junior at Columbia High School located in Maplewood, is involved in a legal battle over her First Amendment right to free expression with the School District of Maplewood/South Orange. Taylor filed a suit against the School District in Newark, NJ federal court on June 26, 2000 and is also fighting to have a three-week suspension from Columbia lifted as well.

On May 10, 2000, Taylor attended her classes at Columbia High School wearing a shirt that contained the phrase “Proud to be an Atheist”. When she reached her third-period class, she was confronted about the shirt by her history teacher, David Kasper. Kasper, a 22- year educator at Columbia, sent Taylor to the principal’s office due to the shirt’s content. “Only a couple of people even noticed the shirt,” said Taylor. “I made it through two classes before Mr. Jasper even saw me.” She also claims that Kasper stated she was “going straight to hell” before she was instructed to see the principal.

Principal Jan Gorlin at first requested, but then demanded, that Taylor change her shirt in the girls’ locker room. At this time, Gorlin allegedly explained to Taylor that “we all believe in God at this school-there’s no room for someone like you here,” even though Columbia is a public high school. Taylor states, “I couldn’t believe he said that. I was just trying to express a different point of view.” In a telephone statement, Gorlin stated, “I never said that to Susan (Taylor). I’ve been an educator for nearly 30 years. I would never hurt a student like that.”

When she refused to change her shirt, Gorlin contacted Taylor’s parents and then had a security guard remove her from the building. According to the suit, Taylor claimed that the security guard pushed and shoved her until she was forced out of the building. Taylor was then given a three-week suspension, which was upheld by the School District, who believes that the right to run the school and maintain its order is the responsibility of the school officials.

Taylor cited Tinker v. Des Moines School District, a case involving public school students who were suspended for wearing black armbands in a non-disruptive and silent protest of America’s involvement pertaining to the Vietnam War. She claimed that her shirt was not disruptive with classes and only caused a few comments from other students. When asked about the current case, the District’s attorney Eileen Bauer stated, “The courts have no authority to manage the day-to-day operations of a school.”

Susan Taylor is suing to overturn her suspension while seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 in punitive damages from the School District. Taylor’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan, says that both parties are in the process of reaching a settlement. Furthermore, Sullivan says that he rejected the offer by the School District requiring Taylor to serve the suspension and refrain from wearing the shirt to Columbia High School again.

by: Michael Smith

NEWARK, NJ –Freedom of expression and the separation of church and state are once again in the legal spotlight. This time it is in a New Jersey public school.

Susan Taylor, a junior at Columbia High School in Maplewood, NJ filed suit yesterday in federal court against the School District of Maplewood/South Orange. She claims that her First Amendment right to freedom of expression was violated on June 2, 2000 when she was confronted and subsequently suspended for wearing a t-shirt that school officials deemed inappropriate for school.

The t-shirt in question, bore the words “Proud to be an Atheist” on the front of it. Taylor was told by the school’s principal, Jan Gorlin, to go to the girls’ locker room and change her shirt. When she refused, Gorlin phoned Taylor’s parents and had her escorted from the building by security.

Taylor alleges that Gorlin told her that “We all believe in God at this school – there’s no room for someone like you here.” Gorlin denied making the comment.

Following her removal from the school, Taylor was suspended for three weeks, a punishment that was ultimately upheld by the school district.

In her suit, Taylor also alleges that she was pushed and shoved while being escorted out of the building by security on the day in question and was told by David Kasper, a teacher at Columbia for 22 years, that she was “going straight to hell.” Kasper was unavailable for comment.

Taylor has cited the Vietnam-era case, Tinker et al. v. Des Moines Independent School District et al. as a precedent that solidifies her legal right to wear the t-shirt to school. In the case, the Supreme Court declared that students protesting the war by wearing black arm bands were within their rights to do so and the school could not prohibit such an action, provided that it did not interfere with school activities. She contends that her shirt was not a disruption to school or the students and she is seeking $2.5 million in punitive damages, $1 million in compensatory damages, as well as an abrogation of her suspension.

Taylor’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan said that the two sides are working on a settlement, but the school district is insisting that Taylor serve her suspension and agree to never wear the contentious t-shirt to the school again. Sullivan said that he rejected the offer. The District was unavailable for comment.

Public School Junior Files Suit Claiming First Amendment Right Violated

By Tracy Beck

Susan Taylor, a junior at Columbia High School in Maplewood, claims her First Amendment right to free expression was violated when she received a three-week suspension for wearing a t-shirt with the words “Proud to be an Atheist” printed on it. Taylor, who filed suit against the School District of Maplewood/South Orange on June 26, 2000 in Newark, NJ federal court, seeks not only to overturn her suspension, but also to receive $1 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages.

Taylor claims that David Kasper, her history teacher and an employee at Columbia High School for 22 years, told her she was “going straight to hell” before he demanded she go to the principals office. Taylor further alleges that the school principal, Jan Gorlin, said to her “we all believe in God at this school- there’s no room for someone like you here.” Via telephone Gorlin has denied these allegations; responding with, “I’ve been an educator for nearly 30 years. I would never hurt a student like that.” Refusal to change her shirt led to Gorlin calling Susan’s parents and her removal from the building by a security guard who supposedly pushed and shoved her.

The School District has upheld Taylor’s suspension and contends that school officials have a right to maintain order and function with minimal disturbances. Eileen Bauer, the District’s attorney, adds “The courts have no authority to manage the day-to-day operations of a school.”

The parties in the suit are trying to work out settlement; however Taylor’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan, has recently rejected the offer from the District which insists that Susan serve her entire suspension and never wear the t-shirt to school in the future.

In citing Tinker v. Des Moines School District, Susan claims that her shirt did not disrupt her classes and caused only a few comments from other students- “I was just trying to express a different point of view.”

Religion & Expression: Has Columbia High School Gone too Far?

By Romilda Perfidio


“We all believe in God at this school - there’s no room for someone like you here.” Words allegedly spoken by Jan Gorlin, principal of Columbia High School in Mapelwood, South Orange, when reprimanding a junior for wearing a t-shirt stating, “Proud to be an Atheist.” Susan Taylor, the junior in question, wore the shirt on June 2, 2000, exercising her First Amendment rights to free expression. Citing Tinker v. Des Moines School District, Taylor claims her t-shirt did not disrupt her classes and caused only a few comments from other students during her time at school.

She says: “I couldn’t believe he said that. I was just trying to express a different point of view.” Gorlin denied making the comment in a telephone interview by claiming: “I never said that to Susan. I’ve been an educator for 30 years. I would never hurt a student like that.”

David Kasper, history teacher at Columbia, a public school, for 22 years, confronted Taylor about the t-shirt before her third period class and sent her to the principal’s office. According to Taylor, Kasper told her she was “going straight to hell.” Principal Gorlin demanded Taylor change her shirt, however she refused and claims she was pushed and shoved from the building by a security guard. Taylor was later suspended for three weeks.

In response to the School District upholding her suspension by claiming that school officials have a right to run the school and to maintain order, Taylor filed suit against the School District of Maplewood/South Orange for violating her First Amendment right to freedom of expression. She is suing to overturn her suspension.

The suit was filed in Newark, NJ federal court on June 26, 2000. Taylor is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages from the School District.

Eileen Bauer, the District attorney claims, “The courts have no authority to manage the day-to-day operations of a school.” However Taylor’s attorney, Nicholas Sullivan, says the parties are trying to work out a settlement. The District insists Taylor serve the entire suspension and that she never wear the t-shirt at issue to school again. Sullivan said he rejected the offer.

Public School in South Orange battling student over First Amendment Rights.

Autumn Marisa

Columbia High School in Maplewood is being sued by student Susan Taylor for violation of her First Amendment Rights. The suit was filed in Newark, NJ federal court on June 26, 2000, after Taylor was suspended for three weeks for wearing a t-shirt to school that said “Proud to be an Atheist”. Taylor claims her freedom of expression right was disregarded.

Taylor reported that her history teacher, David Kasper, said she was “going straight to hell”.
Taylor said the principal, Jan Gorlin, demanded she take the shirt off and allegedly told her “we all believe in God at this school-there’s no room for someone like you here.”

Gorlin denies saying that, claiming she would never hurt a student. Both Kasper and Gorlin have been in education for 22 and 30 years, respectively.
After Gorlin notified her parents, Taylor was eventually removed from the building by
two security guards who she claims pushed and shoved her.

The School District supported the decision of the school to suspend Taylor and encouraged the school officials to maintain order and eliminate disruptions to the learning process. Citing Tinker v. Des Moines School District, Taylor claims she was not disruptive and few students noticed her shirt, she was merely expressing a different view point.

Taylor is suing to overturn her suspension, as wells as seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages. Both parties are trying to settle, but Nicholas Sullivan, Taylor’s Attorney, rejected the initial offer of Taylor serving the entire suspension and banning the t-shirt from being worn again. Eileen Bauer, the District’s attorney said, “The courts have no authority to manage the day-to-day operations of a school.”

A trial date has not been released.