Disabilities Act Used by Lawyers in Flood of Suits

NYTimes

A small cadre of lawyers, some from out of state, are using New York City’s age and architectural quirkiness as the foundation for a flood of lawsuits citing violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

The lawyers are generally not acting on existing complaints from people with disabilities. Instead, they identify local businesses, like bagel shops and delis, that are not in compliance with the law, and then aggressively recruit plaintiffs from advocacy groups for people with disabilities. 

The plaintiffs typically collect $500 for each suit, and each plaintiff can be used several times over. The lawyers, meanwhile, make several thousands of dollars, because the civil rights law entitles them to legal fees from the noncompliant businesses.

Chin inplants - up 71% in 2011

CBC

Cosmetic chin surgery is on the rise among women and men in the United States, most notably in people over the age of 40.

The number of "chinplants" increased 71 per cent between 2010 and 2011 according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) - faster than breast augmentation, Botox and liposuction combined

Get Me'usa: L'chatchila vs. Bedieved????

A simple question has been raised. It seems that even though there are rishonim who allow pressure of various types for a man to give his wife a get - the Achronim require being very cautious because of the possibility the get was not given freely. In short they are choshesh that the pressure produced a get me'usa and thus is invalid.  

What happens if the concerns are ignored. It apparently means at most that there is the possibility that the get is invalid but it is not certain. It also means that we are concerned at most with the possibility that someone might not want to marry the woman - but not that the children are in fact mamzerim. Thus if woman want to take the chance that they might lose a part of the population as possible husbands - what is wrong with allowing this to happen - especially she has a number of major rabbis advocating she do so?

Fired Ramaz nurse can sue for reporting abuse

Forward

A former school nurse at the Ramaz School in New York who says she was fired for reporting a possible case of child abuse can sue the school under the state’s whistleblower law.

The New York State Court of Appeals court ruled April 12 in a 3-2 vote that Joyce Villarin can sue the school for retaliatory termination, upholding a 2010 decision from Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling.

Ramaz encouraged Villarin, who had been working at the school for a year when the incident occurred, not to report the incident to authorities. She was fired in April 2008 after reporting the incident because the school said she was “not a team player.”

Jailing rape victim to ensure testimony

NYTimes

 In a case that has pitted law-enforcement officials against advocates of victims’ rights, prosecutors in Sacramento County, Calif., have detained a 17-year-old girl for twice failing to appear in court to testify against the man accused of raping her. 

The prosecutors say that testimony from the teenager, who twice ran away from a foster home before scheduled court appearances, is critical in the upcoming trial against a man who has a long criminal record and is also suspected of raping at least one other woman. But the teenager’s lawyer and victims’ advocates say that the detention would discourage others, especially those who have been sexually assaulted, from coming forward. They described the move as a setback in a state with some of the country’s strongest laws protecting victims.

Muslims on Wall Street, Bridging Two Traditions

NYTimes

Young Muslims, one of the newest groups to make inroads in American finance, can face steep barriers to entry. Some obstacles are remnants of a less tolerant era. But prominent, too, are the limitations of Islam itself — a faith whose tenets, Muslim workers say, often seem at odds with Wall Street’s sometimes bacchanalian culture. 

Granted, for the many Muslims in New York and elsewhere who have made peace with a more secular culture, working on Wall Street may not pose any problem. And Muslims, of course, aren’t the only ones whose values can clash with the ways of Wall Street. Orthodox Jews, conservative Christians and other faithful working in finance have all, at one point, had to square their beliefs and practices with an environment in which money, not God, is king. 

But for observant Muslims hoping to keep the values and practices of Islamic law, known as Sharia, intact even as they climb the ladder, the calculus can be messy.

Chazon Ish: Rare video

The Chazon Ish from Lakewood246 on Vimeo.

Cohabiting doesn't prevent divorce

NYTimes

Cohabitation in the United States has increased by more than 1,500 percent in the past half century. In 1960, about 450,000 unmarried couples lived together. Now the number is more than 7.5 million. The majority of young adults in their 20s will live with a romantic partner at least once, and more than half of all marriages will be preceded by cohabitation. This shift has been attributed to the sexual revolution and the availability of birth control, and in our current economy, sharing the bills makes cohabiting appealing. But when you talk to people in their 20s, you also hear about something else: cohabitation as prophylaxis. 

In a nationwide survey conducted in 2001 by the National Marriage Project, then at Rutgers and now at the University of Virginia, nearly half of 20-somethings agreed with the statement, “You would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you could find out whether you really get along.” About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce. 

But that belief is contradicted by experience. Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.[...]

Coaches Face New Scrutiny on Sex Abuse

NYTimes

The case of Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator for Penn State’s football team accused of child sexual abuse, is now working its way through the courts. But it is already having an impact on thousands of other coaches, both volunteer and paid, who find themselves facing new scrutiny from parents, sports organizations and even state legislators. 

Since the Penn State scandal came to light in November, lawmakers in more than a dozen states, including New York, California and Pennsylvania, have introduced bills adding coaches, athletic directors or university officials to the list of “mandated reporters” of suspected child abuse or neglect. In the past month, such bills have been signed in Virginia, Washington and West Virginia, with several other states expected to follow suit.[...]

Gedolim suspected Chazon Ish & Ben Gurion of compromise

The Pesach edition of Mishpacha has a very strange story about the meeting of the Chazon Ish with Ben Gurion concerning the issue of religious women participating in national service. The head of the Eida Chareidis Rav Bengis and apparently the Brisker Rav - suspected that the Chazon Ish was planning on compromising with Ben Gurion. They wrote a letter to the Chazon Ish to clarify whether the rumors of compromise were true. Chazon Ish replied that he never intended to compromise with Ben Gurion.

 Rav Bengis explained why he suspected the Chazon Ish. "Ben-Gurion is no fool. He will not allow himself to leave the meeting without having accomplished anything. If he has decided to visit the Chazon Ish's home - with all the publicity his appearance there will generate - it must be that he knows, or that they already arranged that he will come away with some sort of agreement. Clearly this meeting is only going to be the final state in the process."

This is an  adaption of an article which appeared in"Yeshurun" (Vol. 20, Nissan 5768, pp. 296-299)

Chazon Ish - R Grossman DiaryHebrewbooks_org_46426

Minchas Yitzchok: Awarding father - son's custody

Question: There is a boy - the son of one of the Jerusalem community leaders and his wife whose marriage ended in divorce – who has been in his mother’s custody for a year and a half. The wife is now living with her parents in Los Angeles which is far from Brooklyn where the father now lives. The father’s home is in fact in Jerusalem while in New York he doesn’t own a home. Therefore it is basically impossible for him to see his son and to be with him in either spiritual or materialistic ties. All those who have been in his house saw directly that the child had a very strong ties with his father besides the physical materialistic aspect but there was also a strong spiritual connection. Even when the child was in a cradle the father would bring him to the beis medrash for chagim in order that he should hear holy words.... It is obvious that if the son remains in Los Angeles which is very far from the father – there is no possiblity for the father to educate him but the he would have to spend all his time in travel between the two places... And the father is an important leader who is much needed by the community. In addition his main home is in Jerusalem and it would be very degrading to require him to travel to his former wife’s home in order to educate his son... For all the above reasons and others like them it is simply impossible for his son to receive a proper education if he is not with his father. Thus the question is whether the Torah requires that the boy be given to him in order to raise him properly. It is not relevant to claim that he needs his mother because when she was married the child was raised by a baby sitter from whom he received care that was superb. Therefore it would seem that to the one who is asking the question – that the father is correct and he should regain custody. [ after four pages of careful analysis he concludes]. Answer... According to all we have discussed it would appear in my opinion that there is no question that the father is correct in his desire to have custody of his son in order to raise him and educate him in his way and that of his holy ancestors. It is obviously understood that this is to be done in a manner that the mother is not prevented from having the opportunity whenever she wants to come and to see her son and to get joy from her offspring...

שו_ת מנחת יצחק חלק ז סימן קיג