OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW DEAN ACCUSED OF SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION

Professor Danne Johnson has filed a Federal Law suit against Oklahoma City University School of Law and against Dean Lawrence Hellman. Professor Johnson allegedly accuses Dean Lawrence Hellman of sexual discrimination and violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. According to media reports, Johnson has been an associate professor of law since 2003 and contends male law professors at the school make as much as 52% more than their female counterparts at OCU.

Nothing from my "Law School" surprises me. In particular, any allegation regarding Dean Hellman would be unsurprising to me. My personal experiences with him as an Alumni left me to seriously question whether he has any objective sense of "fairness." Of course, that does not mean he is wrong or guilty in the instance of Professor Johnson - that is a factual finding left for the Federal Court to determine. If Dean Hellman is guilty of sexual discrimination, I hope the Federal Court holds him accountable to the full extent of its power. Dean Hellman should be sent the clear message that he should treat all people with equal dignity and respect - even if he is not guilty of sexual discrimination.

Florida's 11th Circuit - Miami/Dade - Rules Law prohibiting Gay adoption is unconsitutional

While there is no "published" opinion, the news reported that a Circuit Judge in the 11th Florida Circuit (which is a trial court judge in Florida) has ruled the Florida Statute prohibiting gay people from adopting children unconstitutional. The news reported that the Judge butressed that decision with the fact that Florida permits placement of Foster Children with gay people and/or couples. Therefore, the Judge reasoned, that any argument Florida has a "rational basis" in prohibiting an adoption by a gay person or couple cannot stand up. Moreover, the news report stated that the Judge made the ruling based upon concerns regarding equal protection for the adopting parents and stating that such a prohibition would not be in the best interest of the children involved because they were entitled to a "permenancy" and a "loving home."

There can be no doubt that this decision will be appealed by the State (Ex rel Department of Families and Children - or DCF). Of course, it doesn't really matter which way the appellate court rules because that decision will undoubetly set in motion a long series of appeals likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court - or, at the very least, an application for certiorari (review) will ultimately be filed asking the US Supreme Court to review the most recent appellate decision.

The most likely, but not the only, route for appeal will be to exhaust all state courts of appeals and then proceed on the Federal side. The fact that the trial judge ruled, at least in part, based upon "due process", and perhaps other rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, will permit the matter to be heard in Federal Court based upon "Federal Question" jurisdiction. It is likely that the appellate process will take several years before the matter is finally resolved.