QUICK LINKS: Home - About Us - Editorial Boards - Join - Events - Submissions - Copyright/Editorial Policies - Subscriptions - Current Sponsors - Donate - Advertise - Alumni - Archives - Blog
CURRENT LOCATION: TJCLCR | Archives | VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1 (Winter, 1997)


Volume 3, Number 1, Winter 1997


Memory, Repression and Expertise: Civilly Actionable Sexual Misconduct in Texas and Individual Rights, 1
Clay S. Conrad


ADA Practitioners Beware: A Brief Comment On Soignier v. American Board of Plastic Surgery, 91
Chad Baruch

In “ADA Practitioners Beware: A Brief Comment on Soignier v. American Board of Plastic Surgery,” Chad Baruch examines how the Soignier decision undermines an interactive process of negotiation intended by the ADA. The ADA is fundamentally different from other civil rights laws because it requires case by case accommodation.

At his licensing test, Soignier was not provided some of the agreed upon accommodations, but continued to negotiate with the American Board of Plastic Surgery. The court barred Soignier's subsequent claim, holding that the claim accrued when the accommodations were originally denied instead of when negotiations broke down. Baruch argues this decision discourages the interactive process and encourages the filing of unnecessary lawsuits, which will flood the federal judiciary. According to Baruch, the better rule would be to hold that an ADA claim begins to accrue when negotiations collapse.


Unresolved Differences: Constitutionality of Religion-Based Peremptory Strikes, The Need for Supreme Court Adjudication, 99
Scot Leaders

This note describes the use of religion-based peremptory strikes and the need for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on this issue. Traditionally, the peremptory strike has been used by lawyers to strike potential jurors without cause to create a fair and impartial panel. Since 1965, however, the Supreme Court has used the Equal Protection Clause to limit the use of peremptory challenges used solely on the basis of race and gender.

Leader argues that the Supreme Court needs to develop a framework for determining the constitutionality of peremptory challenges based on religion under the Equal Protection Clause, and that the lack of any guidance has created vast inconsistencies among the lower courts.


Challenging Discrimination in Real Estate Advertising: Do “Mere” Readers Have Standing?, 113
Ronald L. Phillips

This note examines the current standing jurisprudence of the lower federal courts as it relates to claims for discriminatory housing advertising. Mr. Phillips' note focuses specifically on the issue of whether people who merely read housing advertising have standing to bring claims under FHA law.

The note is separated into three sections. The first discusses general principles of standing under the FHA that have been announced by the Supreme Court. The second deals with various avenues that lower federal courts have taken to decide the issue of whether readers of housing advertising have standing under the FHA. The third section of the note breaks into two analytical lines -- examining from both a statutory rights perspective and the more traditional constitutional rights perspective the differing results reached by federal courts by looking to factors that none of those courts have considered.

The note concludes that readers of discriminatory housing advertisements do enjoy standing to sue for injuries which result from their perusal of advertisements, but for reasons that are not normally considered by the courts that have addressed the issue.