New Article: Sarah Golabek-Goldman, Ban the Address: Combating Employment Discrimination Against the Homeless, 126 Yale L.J. 1788 (2017). Abstract below:
This Note presents a study of obstacles to employment faced by homeless job applicants and offers potential solutions. Homeless job applicants confront discrimination when they provide the address of a shelter or do not have an address to provide on applications. Advocates should seek to protect homeless job applicants by encouraging businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies to provide homeless applicants with addresses or P.O. boxes. Most significantly, the proposed “Ban the Address” campaign would discourage employers from inquiring about an applicant’s address or residency history until after granting a provisional offer of employment. Advocacy efforts such as these can serve as a foundation for successful legal claims under new homeless person’s bills of rights, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This Note explains why requesting residency information might be deemed illegal under both state and federal causes of action. A combination of both legal and nonlegal tactics has the best chance of permitting homeless job applicants to obtain employment and to regain self-sufficiency.
Upcoming Conference: “Housing Not Handcuffs: National Forum on the Human Right to Housing” organized by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, June 6-7, 2017.
New Article: Laurie Ball Cooper & Ana Vohryzek, Rethinking Rapid Re-Housing: Toward Sustainable Housing for Homeless Populations, 19 U. Pa. J.L. & Soc. Change 307 (2017).
Yale Law Journal Forum has published three essays on Matthew Desmond’s Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City (2016), an amazing book that just won this year’s non-fiction Pulitzer Prize. Links to the three articles are below:
Note: Anthony D. Lauriello, Panhandling Regulation After Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 116 Columbia L. Rev. 1105 (2016).
In Reed v. Town of Gilbert the Supreme Court rearticulated the standard for when regulation of speech is content based. This determination has already had a large impact on cases involving panhandling regulations and is likely to result in the invalidation of the majority of this nation’s panhandling laws.
This Note will begin with a discussion of First Amendment doctrine and how panhandling is protected speech. This Note will then demonstrate that it is helpful to think of panhandling regulations categorically and explore how these categories of panhandling laws have fared in lower courts. This Note will then discuss the holding in Reed and how jurisdictions have already begun to invalidate panhandling laws. Finally, this Note proposes using the captive audience doctrine to uphold the validity of some salutary panhandling regulations while invalidating laws that are burdensome and oppressive to free expression.
News Article: Jose A. DelReal, Trump administration considers $6 billion cut to HUD budget, Washington Post (Mar. 8, 2017).
Op-Ed: Editorial Board, The Pope on Panhandling: Give Without Worry, N.Y. Times (Mar. 3, 2017).