Changes to Title IX Guidance
Victims’ rights groups and others have denounced changes made to the handling of sexual conduct claims on college and university campuses under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination in education. However, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos believes that the interim rule will strike a more appropriate balance between those accused of sexual misdeeds and their accusers. The decision came less than two weeks after DeVos said that she would begin a new rule-making procedure to determine how to best guide colleges and universities in handling sexual misconduct claims.
The interim rule replaces guidance issued in 2011 by then-President Barack Obama’s administration, which reminded educators of their responsibility to investigate and respond to allegations of sexual misconduct under Title IX. Although certain victims’ rights groups believed the guidance helped victims to come forward, critics believe it created a system in which the accused were often punished without legal due process.
As the guidance was rescinded, the Department of Education issued an email that criticized the earlier document and a question-and-answer sheet that was circulated in 2014, which explained how to implement it. The email stated that the documents “ignored notice and comment requirements, created a system that lacked basic elements of due process, and failed to ensure fundamental fairness.”
A new Question-and-Answer sheet includes the following information:
- It allows colleges and universities to decide whether to continue using the lesser “preponderance of evidence” standard when deciding claims
- It permits colleges and universities to move to a tougher “’clear and convincing evidence” standard if they deem it appropriate
- It clarifies that schools must still “take steps to understand what occurred and to respond appropriately,” but that they must do so “in a manner that respects the legal rights of students and faculty, including those court precedents interpreting the concept of free speech”
- It states that institutions may restrict contact between the parties, impose leaves of absence, change housing or class schedules, or take other appropriate measures, but they must not rely on “fixed rules”
- It explains that interim measures must be “individualized and appropriate based on the information gathered by the (school’s) Title IX coordinator”
The new policy, which may be replaced if the Education Department settles on a final rule in the months ahead, places the burden on the school to gather sufficient evidence to reach a fair and impartial determination. It also requires that both the accuser and the accused are afforded written notice and other legal rights. Ms. DeVos stated that “Schools must continue to confront these horrific crimes head on. There will be no more sweeping them under the rug. But the process must also be fair and impartial.”
Delaware Sexual Abuse Lawyers at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. Pursue Title IX Claims for Victims of Sexual Misconduct
If you have been the victim of sexual abuse, you need a tough advocate. Contact the law offices of Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. at 302-656-5445 to schedule a confidential consultation with a dedicated and highly skilled Wilmington sexual abuse lawyer, or you can contact us online. We will provide the compassionate guidance you need to secure the justice you deserve. From our offices in Wilmington and Georgetown, we represent clients throughout Delaware.
Delaware Correction Officer’s Request Ignored Before Fatal Prison Siege
A recently released 159-page report suggests that had a lieutenant’s request to move inmates at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center’s (JTVCC) been acted upon, he might still be alive today. On February 1, 2017, inmates in Building C took 126 people hostage in a siege that lasted 18 hours and left the lieutenant fatally injured. An independent review of the incident was commissioned by Delaware Governor John Carney. The report details years of staffing and security issues which ultimately erupted in the deadly prison revolt.
Hostage Takeover in Building C
In January, 2017, the victim, a correctional officer at JTVCC in Smyrna, Delaware, asked prison administrators to move certain inmates out of Building C. The building had a history of tension between gang members, overworked staff, inconsistent discipline procedures, and allegations of mistreatment of inmates. The facility was brimming with tension that the now-slain officer asked officials to address. The Carney report confirmed the problems in Building C.
The lieutenant’s request was ignored and less than two weeks later, disaster occurred. JTVCC inmates took 126 people hostage, including the lieutenant, who was tortured and locked in a closet throughout the ordeal. After eighteen hours of negotiation, a prison Response Team stormed the building to find the officer unresponsive. Tragically, the 47 year-old husband and father was later pronounced dead.
Vaughn’s History of Problems
Considered one of Delaware’s toughest prisons, many JTVCC inmates and employees say the siege was inevitable. Carney’s report details several issues plaguing the prison, all which went ignored in the years leading up to the officer’s death. Employees report being underpaid and overworked. In 2017, 40 percent of staffing hours were overtime. Some correctional officers reported working 16-hour shifts. At times, inmates outnumbered officers 75 to 1. They also mention a lack of consistent security procedures, leaving many prisoners armed and officers vulnerable.
Inmates claim they were neglected and abused, with no programs or activities for improvement. They cite a lack of any rehabilitative opportunities designed to prepare them for healthy and productive lives outside of prison. Inmates say their requests for access to medical care and education were consistently denied. Inmates staged several peaceful protests before the siege, with no results.
The Fight for Justice
Wilmington civil rights lawyer, Thomas C. Crumplar, is part of a team representing the family of the slain officer and several JTVCC employees in a federal civil lawsuit. The suit alleges that two former Delaware governors and several cabinet officials ignored the lengthy history of problems at the prison.
The suit also alleges that Governor Carney stopped a potential rescue attempt and waited too long to send law enforcement into the building. Crumplar says the siege victims were, “involved in protecting us and they were not given the tools.” Governor Carney has vowed to make changes addressing the problems found in the report. His recent budget proposal called for more correctional officers and higher salaries for prison workers. By seeking justice for the family of the victim and his coworkers at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Mr. Crumplar hopes for changes in Delaware prison system that will ensure the rights and safety of both workers and inmates.
Wilmington Personal Injury Lawyers at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. Pursue Justice and Compensation in Wrongful Death Cases
Wilmington personal injury lawyers at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. are committed to helping those who have been injured or suffered the wrongful death of a loved one because of someone else’s negligence. To discuss your case with a Wilmington personal injury lawyer, call 302-656-5445 today to schedule a free consultation or contact us online. Our two conveniently located offices serve clients in upstate and downstate Delaware, including those in Dover, Georgetown, and Wilmington, Delaware.
Understanding Your Risk of Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma is a vicious type of cancer that most commonly attacks the membrane lining of the lungs, but it can also affect the heart and other areas of the body. Currently, there is no cure for mesothelioma. The people most at risk for developing mesothelioma are those who work in industries that use the building material asbestos. Eighty percent of all mesothelioma cases can be directly linked to asbestos exposure. Commonly affected professions include construction workers, plumbers, asbestos miners, military personnel, ship builders, and car mechanics.
Some people are exposed to asbestos through their environment when asbestos laced products breakdown in buildings. When asbestos is present in the environment and inhaled, the fine particles lodge in the lining of the lungs and settle there. Statistically, between two and 10 percent of people who are exposed to asbestos at some point develop mesothelioma in their lungs later in life.
A secondary risk factor for developing mesothelioma is smoking. Although smoking is not a direct causal factor, smokers who are exposed to asbestos have double the risk of mesothelioma and increased risk of asbestos lung cancer by as much as 50 to 90 percent. It is possible that smoking creates the conditions that make it easier for asbestos to become embedded in the lung lining, leading to inflammation. Other secondary less common causes of mesothelioma are polio vaccines, radiation from X-rays, and exposure to zeolites, simian virus 40 (SV 40) and erionite.
Asbestos was Commonplace
Between 1940 and 1978, asbestos was widely in use in many different forms, though after the toxic nature of asbestos was discovered, it was banned for general use. According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), it is possible that as many as 11 million people have been exposed to asbestos. Even now in the United States people are still being exposed, putting them at risk of developing mesothelioma.
Mesothelioma takes many years to show up in the body – symptoms may first appear as many as 20 to 50 years after exposure occurs. There are four different types of mesothelioma, and pleural mesothelioma, which affects the lungs, is the most common type. Between 70 and 90 percent of all mesothelioma cases are pleural. Between 10 and 30 percent of cases are stomach or peritoneal mesothelioma. Cases affecting the heart, known as pericardial mesothelioma, comprise approximately one percent of all cases. Testicular mesothelioma is very rare and accounts for less than one percent of cases.
Because of the direct link between asbestos and mesothelioma, experts advise that there is no level of asbestos exposure that is considered safe and acceptable.
Delaware Mesothelioma Lawyers at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. Fight for Victims of Asbestos Exposure
If you or someone you love has developed mesothelioma after asbestos exposure in the workplace, we can help. The Delaware mesothelioma lawyers at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. have a proven track record helping workers suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Call us today at 302-656-5445 to schedule a free consultation about your case, or contact us online. From our offices in Wilmington and Georgetown, we serve clients throughout upstate and downstate Delaware.
Uninsured Motorist Bill becomes law
The practice of law is often affected by what happens at the state and federal level. New laws can have both a positive and negative effect on the rights of injured parties. Our firm is a member of both the national American Association of Justice (AAJ) and the Delaware Trial Lawyers Association (DTLA), which does vitally important lobbying work at the local, state, and federal level. For example, DTLA was recently instrumental in helping pass Delaware’s new Uninsured Motorist Law.
As explained by DTLA, ”
The underinsured motorist bill (Senate Bill 61) passed the Senate and the House last legislative session, and was signed into law by Governor Markell on July 3, 2013. This new law allows injured parties to pursue their UIM policies up to the extent of their damages (of course, only up to their UIM limits), regardless of the tortfeasor’s bodily injury policy limits. In other words, UIM is “triggered” based on damages rather than “triggered” only if the injured party’s UIM policy limits are higher than the tortfeasor’s bodily injury policy limits.”
“For example, let’s assume that you are significantly injured in car accident, and the person responsible for the accident has $100,000 of bodily injury coverage. If you had $15,000, $25,000, $50,000, or $100,000 of underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage, your underinsured motorist benefits would be equal or less than the responsible party’s liability coverage, and your underinsured motorist coverage would not be “triggered” (and could not be tapped into, even if your injuries were deserving of more than the $100,000 of liability limits available). Under the new law, the underinsured motorist policy limits no longer have to be higher than the responsible party’s liability limits to be accessed. In the above example, you are now permitted to obtain the $100,000 of liability coverage, and also pursue your underinsured motorist policy up to the extent of your underinsured motorist policy limits (assuming that the damages are worth in excess of the liability limits).”
This new law will hopefully help protect Delaware drivers injured by uninsured drivers. This is just one of the countless ways, DTLA fights for Delawareans. Jacobs and Crumplar attorney, Elizabeth Lewis is on the Editorial Board of DTLA, and all attorneys of the firm are actively involved in DTLA and AAJ.
Restitution Paid to Survivors of Child Pornography
On January 24, 2013 The New York Times reported about the cases of several survivors of childhood sexual abuse who suffered the added trauma of knowing that videos and pictures of their horrifying childhood sexual abuse were sent over the internet and downloaded and viewed by numerous people. The article is difficult to read because of its horrifying subject matter. But it is worth reading because it effectively expresses the point that even when these viewers and receivers of childhood pornography do not actually engage in the act of sexually abusing the child, they are fueling the demand for it and are accomplices who encourage the abuse to happen in the first place, because of the nature of their crimes and how the pictures and videos are shared among their community. It discusses these survivors’ rights to restitution paid by the perpetrator who downloads or views their images as is discussed in a recent Opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012), which is attached here. There is a Circuit split on this issue which means the Supreme Court will decide the issue to resolve the conflict among the Circuits.