CARDOZO JOURNAL OF
EQUAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Heidi M. S. Sandomir

In  December  2014, Andowah  Newton  was  offered  the  position  of Director  of  Litigation  Counsel  for  the  American  Affiliate  of  LVMH  Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, a prestigious French corporation. Ms. Newton was thrilled at the offer to work for the renowned conglomerate that owns brands such  as  Dior  and  Givenchy. “I  was ecstatic.    It  was my  dream  job.    I attempted  to  negotiate  several  aspects  of  my  employment  agreement,  but LMVH made it clear that no aspect—including the forced arbitration clause was—negotiable.  It was a take it or leave it offer.” Ms. Newton accepted the  position  and  signed  the  employment  agreement  as  it  was,  feeling  as though she had no other choice if she was to work for LVMH. After she assumed her new role, Ms. Newton excelled and was quickly recognized for her  outstanding  performance.5Her  boss,  the  U.S.  General  Counsel,  wrote “Andowah reflects the highest degree of honesty and ethics in all she does”...

Davis J. Villano

On June 15th, 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in determining whether an employer is permitted to fire an employee “simply for being homosexual or transgender” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court in Bostockwrote that the “answer is clear,”2holding that “[a]n 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.” The Court stated further that sex itself “plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.” In the very next portion of  the Bostockdecision,  Justice  Neil  Gorsuch,  writing  for  the  majority, underscored that “[t]hose who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result”...

Lindsay M. Brocki

On the eastern end of Long Island, New York, a power imbalance has been  perpetuated  for generations:  the  fundamental  inequality  between  the original dwellers of the land, the Shinnecock Indian Nation, and the opulent summer community that has come to surround it. This inequality manifests itself in numerous ways, including state and local government infringement on the Shinnecock Nation’s rightful use of its sovereign land. The meaning of the word “sovereign” has a long and storied history in relation to indigenous tribes in the United States.  The United States federal government  has  recognized  the  sovereignty  of  indigenous  tribes  since colonial times, yet the actual significance of this recognition has never been made clear. The federal government has transitioned through several phases in its approach to affording sovereignty to indigenous tribes, resulting in the Nixon  Administration’s  support  for  “tribal  self-determination”  in  1970...