scholarly journals Diversity and Inclusion in the American Legal Profession: Workplace Accommodations for Lawyers with Disabilities and Lawyers Who Identify as LGBTQ+

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Blanck ◽  
Fitore Hyseni ◽  
Fatma Altunkol Wise
2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-87
Author(s):  
Shain A. M. Neumeier ◽  
Lydia X. Z. Brown

Far too many—if not most—of us in the legal profession who belong to both the disability and LGBTQ+ communities have known informally, through our own experiences and those of others like us, that workplace bias and discrimination on the basis of disability, sexuality, and gender identity is still widespread. The new study by Blanck et al. on diversity and inclusion in the U.S. legal profession provides empirical proof of this phenomenon, which might otherwise be dismissed as being based on anecdotal evidence.1 Its findings lend credibility to our position that the legal profession must make systemic changes to address workplace ableism, heterosexism, and transmisia.2 They also suggest possibilities as to where and how it might start to do so through providing information on who employers discriminate against most often and in what forms.3


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-61
Author(s):  
Peter Blanck ◽  
Fitore Hyseni ◽  
Fatma Altunkol Wise

AbstractPurposeThis article is part of an ongoing body of investigation examining the experiences of lawyers with diverse and multiple minority identities, with particular focus on lawyers with disabilities; lawyers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (“LGBTQ+” as an overarching term); and lawyers with minority identities associated with race and ethnicity, gender, and age. The focus of this article is on discrimination and bias in their workplaces as reported by the lawyers experiencing it.MethodsWe employ survey data from the first phase of this investigation, gathered from the survey responses of 3590 lawyers located across all states in the United States and working in most types and sizes of legal venues. The data were collected between 2018 and 2019, before the 2020 pandemic. We estimate differences across three categories of discrimination reported—subtle-only discrimination, overt-only discrimination, and both subtle and overt discrimination. We estimate the nature and magnitude of associations among individual and organizational variables, and we use multinomial logistic regression to illustrate relative risks of reports of discrimination for intersecting identities.ResultsAs compared to non-disabled lawyers, lawyers with disabilities show a higher likelihood of reporting both subtle and overt discrimination versus no discrimination. Similarly, lawyers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (“LGBQ”) show a higher likelihood of reporting both subtle and overtdiscrimination, and subtle-only discrimination, as compared to lawyers who identify as straight/heterosexual. Women lawyers and lawyers of color are more likely to report all three types of discrimination. In general, younger lawyers are more likely to report subtle-only discrimination when compared to older lawyers. Lawyers working at a private firm are less likely to report all types of discrimination, while working for a larger organization is associated with a higher relative risk of reporting subtle-only discrimination versus no discrimination.ConclusionsThe current study represents a next, incremental step for better understanding non-monochromatic and intersectional aspects of individual identity in the legal profession. The findings illustrate that primary individual and multiple minority identities, as identified by disability, sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity, and age, are associated with reports of discrimination and bias in the legal workplace.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-90
Author(s):  
Elyn R. Saks

Diversity and Inclusion in the American Legal Profession: Discrimination and Bias Reported by Lawyers with Disabilities and Lawyers Who Identify as LGBTQ+ (“Blanck et al.”) is an incredibly careful, thoughtful, and powerful article, and may and should lead to changes in the stigma, bias, and discrimination landscape in the legal profession.1


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1410-1421
Author(s):  
Erica Ellis ◽  
Mary Kubalanza ◽  
Gabriela Simon-Cereijido ◽  
Ashley Munger ◽  
Allison Sidle Fuligni

Purpose To effectively prepare students to engage in interprofessional practice, a number of Communication Disorders (COMD) programs are designing new courses and creating additional opportunities to develop the interprofessional competencies that will support future student success in health and education-related fields. The ECHO (Educational Community Health Outreach) program is one example of how the Rongxiang Xu College of Health and Human Services at California State University, Los Angeles, has begun to create these opportunities. The ultimate goal of the ECHO project is to increase both access to and continuity of oral health care across communities in the greater Los Angeles area. Method We describe this innovative interdisciplinary training program within the context of current interprofessional education models. First, we describe the program and its development. Second, we describe how COMD students benefit from the training program. Third, we examine how students from other disciplines experience benefits related to interprofessional education and COMD. Fourth, we provide reflections and insights from COMD faculty who participated in the project. Conclusions The ECHO program has great potential for continuing to build innovative clinical training opportunities for students with the inclusion of Child and Family Studies, Public Health, Nursing, and Nutrition departments. These partnerships push beyond the norm of disciplines often used in collaborative efforts in Communication Sciences and Disorders. Additionally, the training students received with ECHO incorporates not only interprofessional education but also relevant and important aspects of diversity and inclusion, as well as strengths-based practices.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Jones ◽  
Scott R. Van Buskirk ◽  
Marcia Anderson ◽  
Sharon K. G. Dunbar ◽  
Juan G. Ayala ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document