The State Department has published a pamphlet that will inform vulnerable workers who come to the United States on temporary visas, including domestic workers and guest workers, of their legal rights and the resources available to them.
The publication of this document comes after years of advocacy on behalf of workers who are vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation (see here, here, and here). The pamphlet is the product of a collaboration between the federal government and numerous advocates and nongovernmental organizations, including the ACLU, CASA of Maryland, Global Workers Justice Alliance, Jenner & Block, Legal Momentum, Southern Poverty Law Center, National Employment Law Project, Farmworker Justice, National Immigration Justice Center, Farmworker Legal Services of New York, Solidarity Center, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., AFL-CIO and Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking.
One group of these workers is domestic workers, predominantly poor women of color, brought here to work for foreign diplomats stationed in the U.S. Due to their isolation in the home, their anonymity, the power and immunity that their diplomat employers have, language barriers, and lack of information, these women are extremely susceptible to exploitation and abuse, and many have been enslaved for years with little or no recourse. With the issuance of this pamphlet, the State Department is taking an important step toward addressing the lack of information and misinformation propagated by some employers.
The pamphlet, whose creation and dissemination is mandated by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), enacted last December, is to be distributed to temporary visa holders before they leave their home countries. It will be available in 11 languages and will be distributed by every U.S. Embassy and Consulate throughout the world.
The pamphlet provides workers information about their legal rights regarding pay, discrimination, sexual harassment, health and safety, unions and collective bargaining, leaving an abusive employment situation, and employer retaliation. Domestic workers employed by diplomats are specifically advised that they have the right to an employment contract describing their work duties, work hours, days off, and pay and that their diplomat employers may not confiscate their passports or other personal property. The pamphlet also describes warning signs of human trafficking, explains how to get help, and addresses concerns about deportation.
We hope and believe that this information will go a long way to protect vulnerable domestic workers by informing them of their rights and how to access help and services. But the fact remains that they are still incredibly vulnerable and that much more must be done to eradicate their trafficking and exploitation. The State Department must implement the other provisions of the TVPRA, including improved tracking of reported abuses. To fully vindicate domestic workers’ rights, there must be a system through which they can bring their abusers to justice and receive compensation for their losses. We look forward to continuing our work with the State Department on these issues.
The State Department pamphlet is currently available in English, in an online version and a printable version.
To learn more about the ACLU’s work on behalf of domestic workers abused and trafficked by diplomats, visit www.aclu.org/domesticworkers.
— Vania Leveille, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office and Araceli Martinez-Olguin, Staff Attorney, Women’s Rights Project
Last Friday Vice President Biden announced the appointment of Lynn Rosenthal as the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, the first time such a position has existed. We welcome the high-level attention this will bring to violence against women, one of the most critical women’s right issues of our day, and the appointment of such an effective and experienced women’s advocate.
Ms. Rosenthal has been a powerful advocate for housing and economic justice for survivors of violence, two of the most important factors in women’s ability to escape violent situations. As an editorial in yesterday’s New York Times lays out,
Ms. Rosenthal’s challenge, and the administration’s, will be to improve the carrying out of existing laws intended to protect women, starting with better coordination of the activities of all the government bureaucracies involved, including the Justice Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In particular, we look forward to a new emphasis on HUD’s implementation of the Violence Against Women Act’s provisions protecting survivors from housing discrimination.
Ms. Rosenthal has also been a strong ally in efforts to hold police and government accountable for protecting women and children’s safety by enforcing court protective orders. We hope that she will be a force for implementing any recommendations that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will issue in the ACLU’s case, Jessica Gonzales v. USA.
More broadly, this appointment is an opportunity for the administration to look holistically at the issue of violence against women and how it intersects with poverty, racism, immigration status, substance abuse, homelessness, and other factors that make women and girls vulnerable to violence. It is also an opportunity for the administration to recognize the integral role that violence plays in women’s involvement in the criminal justice system.
We urge Ms. Rosenthal to move government response to the violence that women and girls experience away from a punitive one and in the direction of prevention, services, and empowerment.
To learn more about the ACLU’s work to combat violence against women, visit www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence.
(A version of this article originally appeared on AJC.com)
I have been watching with interest and apprehension the movement reverberating in my birthplace over the past few weeks. The cries of “Azadi” by the people who have poured out in the tens of thousands into the streets to demand greater freedom have defied the distance between us.
I was born in Iran four days after the 1979 revolution. My name, Azadeh, means "free-spirited," signifying the great hopes that my parents and the many other parents who named their daughters Azadeh that year bore for the revolution. Their hopes were soon dashed, however, as the oppressive regime of the shah was replaced by a theocracy in which there are rules governing every aspect of people’s lives in public, and even private, spaces. In this system, one’s advancement in professional and especially official ranks depends in part on the extent to which one chooses to profess one’s religiosity, as defined in a regime-dictated manner.
Faced with this backdrop, one of the freedoms that was most appealing to me when I came to the United States at age 16 was the right, free from governmental interference, to practice one’s religion, or no religion at all. I learned that this right is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In my trips back to visit family and friends, I often boasted about the guarantee of religious freedom in the United States.
This fundamental right has been increasingly denied, however, to Muslim-Americans post-9/11, tarnishing America’s reputation as a beacon of religious freedom.
Last week, the ACLU released a report demonstrating how American Muslims’ right to practice zakat — charitable giving, which is one of the five pillars of Islam — has been violated. The ACLU report shows that U.S. terrorism finance laws and policies have had a chilling effect on Muslim charitable giving by creating an atmosphere of fear. These laws have authorized executive branch officials to target charities based on secret evidence, and without notice, charges, an opportunity to respond, or meaningful judicial review.
Closer to home, I recently joined Ms. Lisa Valentine and her husband before the Georgia Committee on Access and Fairness in the Courts. Ms. Valentine was there to testify about the experience she faced at a courthouse in Douglasville, Ga., where she was made to choose between her right to free exercise of religion and her right to access to court.
Ms. Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, spoke about the experience of being denied the right to gain access to the courthouse on December 16, 2008, because she wore a headscarf. She found herself in handcuffs and in jail with her hijab removed after Judge Keith Rollins of the Douglasville Municipal Court sentenced her to 10 days in jail for contempt of court. Ms. Valentine and other Muslim women were denied access to the Douglasville Municipal Court, even after they expressly conveyed to court officials that the wearing of the headscarf is an expression of their faith.
Muslim-Americans, like all people in the United States, should have the right to express their religious beliefs free from discrimination or the jeopardizing of other important rights.
As eloquently stated by President Obama in his speech in Cairo on June 4th, “freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion.” The President acknowledged the right of Muslim women and girls to wear the hijab and raised the issue of the adverse effect of terrorism finance laws on Muslim charitable giving.
The administration and governments on the state and local levels need to follow up on this premise by ensuring that our laws, policies, and practices are in fact consistent with American values of due process and religious freedom.
These freedoms are too important to be violated, as evidenced by the willingness of people in my birthplace to risk their lives to secure them.
For years advocates have been trying to vindicate the rights of domestic workers who have been enslaved by foreign diplomats in the U.S. Virtually every time a domestic worker has brought charges of abuse and exploitation against her diplomat employer, the courts have ruled that the diplomat could not be held accountable for his actions because of diplomatic immunity. But not yesterday. Yesterday a court denied a former Philippine ambassador to the U.N. the ability to duck responsibility for violating his domestic worker’s human, civil, and labor rights simply by asserting that he was a diplomat at the time. Marichu Baoanan, who was held captive and forced to work as a domestic worker for the ambassador, and is represented by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, can proceed with her case against her former employer. Few women in her situation can say the same.
 |
|
|
Marichu’s mistreatment is no isolated incident. As documented by Human Rights Watch nearly a decade ago, and further quantified by the Government Accountability Office and the ACLU, domestic workers employed by diplomats are particularly susceptible to abuse and exploitation because of their employers’ status as diplomats. The ACLU represents Kumari Sabbithi, Joaquina Quadros, and Tina Fernandes in a similar case arising out of their enslavement by a Kuwait diplomat in the Washington, D.C. area.
Though groundbreaking, yesterday’s decision does not empower all abused, exploited, or even enslaved domestic workers to bring diplomat employers before a court to answer for rights violations. Yesterday, the court only concluded that former diplomats could be held accountable, declining to determine whether a diplomat still in that position should be shielded by diplomatic immunity from charges of human trafficking. In order to fully vindicate the human rights of domestic workers, no form of immunity should protect diplomats who abuse, exploit, and enslave their employees.
To learn more about the ACLU’s efforts to protect the rights of domestic workers, visit www.aclu.org/domesticworkers.
NOTE: This blog post as been amended to include a link to the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund website.
Today marks the 46th anniversary of President Kennedy’s signing of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. That historic act signified our nation’s commitment to ensuring that women are not paid less than men for equal work. Upon signing the bill, President Kennedy proclaimed that the bill "affirms our determination that when women enter the labor force they will find equality in their pay envelope." Indeed, the bill helped women make significant strides towards equality in the workforce. Unfortunately, over time, loopholes and weak remedies have made this historic law less effective than Congress originally intended. Therefore, there is no more fitting way to commemorate this historic anniversary than to push for passage of S. 182, the Paycheck Fairness Act, a necessary update to the Equal Pay Act.
There is no doubt that updates to improve the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act’s protections are needed. Forty-six years after President Kennedy signed the Act, women, on average, continue to earn only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men — that’s only 18 cents more on the dollar than when President Kennedy signed the bill in 1963. For women of color, the progress has been even slower. This bill would enable President Kennedy’s vision to be fully realized, albeit several decades late.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would give employees legal tools to close the wage gap that has held women’s economic progress back for so long. For example, the bill would require employers to demonstrate that disparities in pay between men and women working the same job result from factors other than sex. It would also prohibit retaliation against employees who inquire about their employers’ wage practices or disclose their own pay to their colleagues. Furthermore, the Act would deter discrimination by strengthening the penalties for equal pay violations and would authorize additional training of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff to better identify and address pay violations. Through these steps, the Paycheck Fairness Act would allow our nation to finally move forward in closing the unlawful wage gap.
Last January, the House of Representatives recognized the need to update the Equal Pay Act and overwhelmingly passed the Paycheck Fairness Act with bipartisan support. Recently, Senators Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) announced that they will take the lead on the fight to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. Over 31 senators and counting are cosponsors. The bill now has more cosponsors than in any other previous Congress. There is momentum, but more work is necessary. The 46th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act is a good reminder that the Senate needs to follow the House’s example of working to finally secure equal pay for equal work for all American workers.
In 1963, President Kennedy recognized upon signing the Equal Pay Act that "our economy today depends upon women in the labor force." This is even truer today. During this financial crisis, women are a critical part of the economic engines that will drive this nation’s recovery. However, under no circumstances should women, single-mother households, and families dependent on two wage earners have to struggle to live on less than they rightfully earn. The impact of these pay disparities is felt even more during these times of economic hardship. Now more than ever, passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act is essential not only for women, but for all working families.
Let us celebrate the 46th anniversary of President Kennedy’s signing of the Equal Pay Act by pushing for the passage of S. 182, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act is the only way we can fulfill President Kennedy’s assurance that American women will "find equality in their pay envelope."
— Deborah J. Vagins, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office, and Rachel Marshall, 2009 Summer Law Clerk, ACLU Washington Legislative Office
(Originally posted on ACSBlog.)
Last week the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s practice of granting patents on human genes - specifically, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. In the last 20 or so years the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has issued patents on thousands of human genes — the segments of DNA that we all have in our cells — giving private corporations, individuals, and universities the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences and their usage.
The patents on the BRCA genes are particularly broad and offensive. The PTO has granted Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, patents on both the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic sequences, on any mutations along those genes, on any methods for locating mutations on the genes, without further specification on the type of methods, and on correlations between genetic mutations and susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.
The lawsuit charges, as critics of gene patents have argued for years, that gene patents stifle biomedical research and interfere with patients’ access to genetic testing. The lawsuit argues that the patents on the BRCA genes are unconstitutional and invalid given the long-standing legal precedent that “products of nature” and “laws of nature” are not patentable. The suit also makes the novel argument that the practice of patenting genes, their correlations with disease, and the thought of comparing two genes violates the First Amendment and interferes with scientific freedom.
Read more…
The ACLU has taken on a patent case for the first time in its nearly 90-year history. The government’s been allowing private companies to patent human genes. The ACLU thinks that violates the First Amendment and patent law. This is heady, complicated stuff. But when a patent creates a monopoly that restricts the free flow of information, a lot is at stake, and when we’re talking about something like genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, real women are hurt. This video about the case features some of those women’s stories.
"How can it be that a company controls genes? How is that possible?" Barbara Brenner asks in the video. She’s the director of Breast Cancer Action and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
We hope this short video will inform and inspire. It provides a simple explanation and overview of the issues in our case against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which granted Myriad Genetics patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, the genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The video also features the women directly affected by the patents. They represent any number of mothers and daughters you may know facing the same obstacles as three of the plaintiffs in our case, Genae Girard, Lisbeth Cerianai, and Runi Limary.
The results from Myriad’s genetic test are a strong factor in women’s decision to have children. Breast cancer survivor Genae Girard, 39, took Myriad’s genetic test to determine if she’s at risk for ovarian cancer. Her test results showed that she’s at a high risk for the cancer, and should have her ovaries removed. Because only Myriad holds the patents on the genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, no one else can offer this genetic test without its permission. Therefore Girard can’t get a second test, or a second opinion, on whether to have her ovaries removed.
Lisbeth Ceriani, a single mom, simply can’t afford the more than $3,000 test. Getting the test paid for by insurance can be difficult.
"I’d like to see my 8-year-old daughter go to college," Ceriani says. "But if I have the mutation, there’s a huge chance I’ll end up with ovarian cancer in the immediate future. I need to have that test so I can get my ovaries out if I need to before anything happens. I don’t like those odds." Myriad’s monopoly on the genes, and therefore the genetic test, prevents other companies from offering this potentially life-saving test at a lesser cost to patients.
Dr. Wendy Chung, Director of Clinical Genetics at Columbia University and another plaintiff in the case, says she too often sees women like Girard and Runi Limary who can’t seek second opinions and are given little data to understand what their tests results mean because of the patents.
Limary had breast cancer at 28 and took Myriad’s test to find out if it was likely to return and if ovarian cancer is a concern. The result was puzzling: Limary was told she had a genetic variant of "uncertain significance." It turns out other Asian-American women like Limary had also received these results. But because patent-holder Myriad has not determined the variant’s significance, and other companies are excluded from offering the test, these women are left to guess whether their variants warrant removal of their ovaries along with their ability to have children.
Tania Simoncelli, ACLU science advisor, says a lot is at stake if companies like Myriad are allowed to own genes and have a monopoly on everything associated with those genes.
"They own not only the gene, they own any future tests, any future drug, any future therapy, so we’re putting our trust in one single company," says Simoncelli. "There are places where the patent system has gone too far. Too much patent protection can in fact trample our civil liberties."
Please share this video far and wide and let others know why it is important that we stop the government from allowing companies like Myriad to own our genes.
Today the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s practice of granting patents on human genes – specifically, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. That’s right: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues patents on human genes – the segments of DNA that we all have in our cells – giving private corporations, individuals, and universities the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. Although many people are unaware of this practice, it has been going on for roughly 20 years, and at this point 20 percent of the human genome has been patented.
This raises serious civil liberties concerns because the government is essentially giving patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. Patent holders have the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying, or even looking at the genes. That means that if you or your doctor were to remove your genes from your cells in order to examine them, you would be committing patent infringement and could be sued by the patent holder.
We believe this is a gross violation of First Amendment rights: individuals’ rights to know about their own genetic makeup, doctors’ rights to provide their patients with crucial medical information, and scientists’ rights to study the human genome and develop new treatments and genetic tests. Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU, said in a statement:
Knowledge about our own bodies and the ability to make decisions about our health care are some of our most personal and fundamental rights. The government should not be granting private entities control over something as personal and basic to who we are as our genes. Moreover, granting patents that limit scientific research, learning and the free flow of information violates the First Amendment.
Our lawsuit challenges the patents on two genes in particular – the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes – which are controlled by Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah. Mutations along the BRCA genes are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic tests can detect these mutations and tell women if they are at increased risk of cancer, which in turn informs their decisions about screening, prevention and treatment options.
Myriad is aggressive in enforcing its patents against other scientists and labs who wish to conduct clinical testing and research on the BRCA genes. This has meant that researchers cannot develop new genetic tests without permission, some women cannot access testing because of the high price Myriad charges (currently over $3,000), no one can get a second opinion, and women who receive ambiguous test results have no recourse. Women of color are disproportionately likely to receive ambiguous test results. Less research has been done on their genetics in part because Myriad has the sole power to determine what to do with the data it collects from people who are tested.
The patent system was created to foster innovation by rewarding inventors for their work. But genes are naturally-occurring parts of our bodies, not inventions, and the reality is that gene patents hinder scientific advancement.
Many individuals and organizations have spoken out against the practice of gene patenting over the years, but our lawsuit – which brings together breast cancer and women’s health groups, individual women, and scientific associations representing approximately 150,000 researchers, pathologists and laboratory professionals – is the first to challenge gene patents on First Amendment grounds. Because we are challenging the whole notion of gene patenting, this case could have far-reaching effects beyond the BRCA genes. Other patented genes include those associated with Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, colon cancer, and asthma.
To read the press release, complaint, plaintiff statements, and to sign a statement of support, visit www.aclu.org/brca.
Yesterday, we learned that the St. Clair County School System in Alabama has agreed to stop sex segregation in public schools. This policy change came after the ACLU told the district that these programs are illegal and discriminatory.
Back in December of last year, the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project (WRP) and the ACLU of Alabama sent Open Records Act requests to nine school districts in Alabama requesting information about their sex-segregated programs. One district, the St. Clair County School System, asked the ACLU to testify at a Board of Education meeting on April 20. At that meeting, ACLU of Alabama staff attorney Allison Neal outlined how sex-segregated programs inevitably lead to inequality, and may violate Title IX of the Education Amendments, the Equal Education Opportunities Act and the Constitution.
We received a letter from St. Clair yesterday, stating that it would end the single-sex education program at Odenville Middle School and would no longer offer single-sex education at any other school in the district for the 2009-2010 school year.
Neal said in a statement:
We commend St. Clair County for abandoning sex segregation in the coming school year. Especially in a period of tight budgets, it makes sense for school districts to invest their time and money into methods that have been proven to promote student success. While single-sex education is trendy, the evidence supporting its effectiveness just isn’t there.
WRP Deputy Director Emily Martin added:
One of the strengths of public schools is the opportunity they provide for students to learn from those different from themselves. When boys and girls learn how to cooperate and compete, they get the best preparation for working together in a coeducational world.
The WRP still has an outstanding lawsuit against a school district in Kentucky for its ongoing sex-segregated classes. You can learn more about this case and our work on sex segregation at www.aclu.org/sexsegregation.
(Originally posted on Feministing.)
It’s only been 100 days, but already reproductive freedom has come a long way. The first 100 days of the Obama administration have brought us more victories than we had in the eight years of the previous administration, and now seems like a good time to recognize and celebrate our success.
On his first Friday in office, President Obama rescinded the Global Gag Rule, restoring U.S. funding to international organizations that use their own, non-U.S. dollars to provide, refer for, and/or advocate for safe and legal abortion in their countries. This decision will both increase women’s access to desperately needed family planning services, such as contraceptives, HIV-AIDS prevention, and maternal care; and reaffirm the United States’ commitment to free speech and democratic participation.
At the same time, President Obama committed to reinvesting in the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, which is widely considered the best delivery system for international family planning funds worldwide. Also in the international realm, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been vocal in her support for reproductive health care and family planning services abroad and at home and has made it clear that reproductive freedom will be an important tenet of U.S. foreign policy.
Read more…
| 
