Fighting Discrimination Against Mothers of Children with Disabilities

 

"Discrimination that Requires a Remedy: The Case of Mothers of Children with Disabilities," by Ewa Rejman (2025).  Mercer Law Review: Vol. 76: No. 2, Article 4. https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol76/iss2/4.

International human rights law devotes particular attention to the protection of vulnerable groups owing to their special needs and distinctive challenges which should be adequately considered. Building upon this premise and stressing the importance of gender approach, the Article describes particular vulnerabilities that mothers of children with disabilities face and explains how addressing them remains contingent upon safeguarding, in particular, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to family life. Through the analysis of the responsibility for the omission in international law, as well as binding positive obligations in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, it identifies states’ duty to remedy discrimination that mothers of children with disabilities experience.

To this end, the article argues that these mothers suffer from associative discrimination on the basis of disability and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex. It relies on the definition of discrimination provided by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, according to which the discriminatory effect, even in the absence of intent, suffices to establish the existence of discrimination if other conditions - distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference or other differential treatment nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of rights on equal footing - are fulfilled. In doing so, it critically discusses the relevant jurisprudence on discrimination of vulnerable groups of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice, the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights, and treaty-monitoring bodies by deducing the underlying principles and applying them to the protection of these mothers. 

As a remedy, the author proposes the introduction of “special measures” - instruments already recognized in international legal treaties - explaining that in cases concerning disability, unlike those involving race, measures should not be necessarily described as “temporary.” Considering the rights of mothers of children with disabilities, it is crucial to focus on indirect discrimination. The most relevant difference for our considerations is the presence of discriminatory effect on certain groups even in the absence of discriminatory intent, for example, “when the agent is simply unaware of and indifferent to the effects” of the act.

Associative discrimination is the legal term that applies when someone is treated unfairly because either someone they know or someone they are associated with has a certain  protected characteristic. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) explicitly prohibits “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association.”

Mothers of children with disabilities have to be treated differently from other people because their situation is significantly different.  These individuals simply have different needs that have to be addressed differently in order to enjoy opportunities as close as possible to those available to others. The same logic should be applied to caregivers, in this case, mothers of children with disabilities, whose needs also change because of situations in which they find themselves.

U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) Files Proposed Settlement Agreements Regarding Accessibility Retrofits

 

The settlement agreements were filed on March 25 and 27, 2025, the  at, respectively, The Kendrick, in Needham, Massachusetts, and Emerson at Edge on the Hudson, in Sleepy Hollow, New York. The complaint, which was filed on June 18, 2024, alleges that several Toll-related entities and others violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct residential properties in New York and elsewhere with the required accessibility features.  The case was referred to the Department of Justice after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.  The complaint is also based on evidence obtained by the USDOJ's Fair Housing Testing Program.

On June 25, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the U.S. and Defendant Lendlease Construction LMB Inc.  The decree requires Lendlease not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty.  On July 28, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the U.S. and Defendant GreenbergFarrow Architecture, Inc.  The decree requires GreenbergFarrow not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $30,000 civil penalty. 

On January 8, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a second amended complaint.  On March 1, 2025, the court approved a settlement agreement regarding retrofits at Parc at Princeton Junction, in Princeton, New Jersey.  On March 4, 2025, the court approved a proposed settlement agreement regarding retrofits at another property, The Morgan, in Jersey City, New Jersey.

Read the April 2, 2025 USDOJ article.

META Oversight Allows Anti-Trans Hate from Others, But Tells Meta to Remove Its Own

 

GLAAD, the world’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, has responded to a new decision announced by the Oversight Board, the body that makes pseudo-independent rulings about Facebook, Instagram, and Threads content moderation cases. GLAAD’s analysis of the ruling found a clear disagreement among the Oversight Board on the cases - the issued decision permits two posts containing anti-trans content, while notifying Meta that it must also remove anti-trans rhetoric it added to its hate speech policy in January. The Washington Post has reported that top Meta executives told the Oversight Board that the ruling should be “treated carefully” … “given the fraught political debate” about the rights of trans people in the U.S.

The Board ruled that the two harassing posts, one intentionally misgendering a transgender woman and the other intentionally misgendering a transgender girl, should remain (one on Facebook, the other on Instagram). They were both reshared by a prominent anti-LGBTQ account, inviting more visibility and harassment. The ruling expressly notes that the posts “misgender identifiable trans people,” yet asserts that the posts do not “represent bullying and harassment,” instead characterizing them as “public debate.” Although the majority of the Oversight Board supported Meta’s decision to allow the content, a minority expressly noted (in concurrence with GLAAD’s public comment submitted for the Board’s consideration) that the posts violate Meta’s Bullying and Harassment policy. The policy prohibits targeted misgendering of transgender people, stating: “all private minors, private adults (who must self-report), and minor involuntary public figures are protected from… claims about… gender identity.” Additional background is below, including the company’s caveats about who is protected by the policy and who is not.

Acknowledging Meta’s use of an anti-trans trope in its January 7, 2025 policy changes, and urging the company to remove it, the Oversight Board states: “Finally, the Board is concerned that Meta has incorporated the term ‘transgenderism’ into its revised Hateful Conduct policy. To ensure Meta’s content policies are framed neutrally and in line with international human rights standards, Meta should remove the term “transgenderism” from the Hateful Conduct policy and corresponding implementation guidance.” (“Transgenderism” is a popular right-wing anti-trans trope intended to falsely imply that being trans is an ideology.)

In September 2024, GLAAD submitted an official public comment regarding the two cases (“Gender Identity Debate Videos“), which address anti-transgender hate and harassment content. The Board’s ruling acknowledges Meta’s recent sweeping changes to its Hateful Conduct policy, including the removal of many policy protections for transgender people. Among the many rollbacks, the company said it will now allow calls “for exclusion or use insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights” (e.g. “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism [sic] and homosexuality [sic]”). GLAAD has spoken out extensively about how this policy language is dehumanizing hate speech in itself which is attempting to normalize anti-LGBTQ bigotry.

While Meta rolled back LGBTQ protection aspects of its Hateful Conduct policy in January, its policy continues to state that it prohibits hate and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Even in Meta’s own logic, and as a minority of the Oversight Board expressly agree, the posts clearly violate Meta’s policy which still prohibits targeted misgendering of transgender people (i.e. “claims about gender identity”). While Meta’s updated Hateful Conduct policy still prohibits hate and harassment of people on the basis of protected characteristics including gender identity, the company has stated that it will now primarily rely on user reports to identify “less severe policy violations.”

While there are many interesting and complex aspects to the case, this primary aspect above (Meta’s existing policy protecting people from “claims about … gender identity”) should have made the Oversight Board’s adjudication straightforward. Arcane facets of Meta’s policy enforcement considerations created disagreement amongst the Board: including the question of whether the targeted subjects must self-report the accounts who target them, and whether the subjects should be considered public figures. (The policy only protects: “private minors, private adults (who must self-report), and minor involuntary public figures.”) GLAAD has long advocated for the removal of these distinctions and requirements — everyone should be protected.

Read GLAAD’s full public comment here.

As in GLAAD’s 2024 SMSI report, Meta’s Facebook, Instagram, and Threads are largely failing to mitigate anti-LGBTQ hate and harassment. Meta’s enforcement failures have elicited longtime concern from the Oversight Board, trust and safety experts, human rights advocates, and Meta’s shareholders.

A 2024 GLAAD report found that Meta is failing to moderate extreme anti-trans hate across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. The fourth annual GLAAD Social Media Safety Index & Platform Scorecard (SMSI)was released in June 2024. After reviewing six major platforms on 12 LGBTQ-specific indicators, all received low and failing scores: TikTok: 67%, Instagram: 58%, Facebook: 58%, YouTube: 58%, Threads: 51%, and X: 41%.

Key findings of the 2024 SMSI include:

• Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric on social media translates to real-world offline harms.
• Anti-LGBTQ hate speech and disinformation continues to be an alarming public health and safety issue.
• Platforms are largely failing to mitigate this dangerous hate and disinformation and inadequately enforce their own policies.
• Platforms disproportionately suppress LGBTQ content, including via removal, demonetization, and shadow-banning.
• There is a lack of effective, meaningful transparency reporting from the platforms.

Read the April 24, 2025 GLAAD article.

Trump's Order Guts Cornerstone of Modern Civil Rights Law Used to Enforce Antidiscrimination Laws

 

Trump’s order directs federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement” of statutes and regulations that include disparate-impact liability, which has long enabled courts to stop policies and practices that unfairly exclude people on the basis of protected characteristics such as race, gender, and disability. The order also instructs the U.S. attorney general to repeal key components of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bar any program receiving federal financial support from discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.”

Disparate impact claims allow consumers to challenge a variety of discriminatory practices aimed at people of color, people with disabilities, families with young children, and women, among others. These practices would otherwise, even when identified, go unaddressed. Lawsuits bringing disparate impact claims have exposed and remedied longstanding patterns of discrimination and brought relief to thousands of consumers. During the subprime lending boom that led to the Great Recession of 2008, communities of color were targeted for high-risk, high interest rate loans, and they were hit especially hard by the financial crisis. Many lawsuits bringing disparate impact claims were filed in an attempt to alter this toxic reality and bring relief to individual consumers. These lawsuits unmasked widespread discriminatory lending practices. 

Derek Black, who directs the Constitutional Law Center at the University of South Carolina, said the administration was misstating the law. “If it were true that disparate-impact liability creates ‘a near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination,’ we might have rid the country of disparities long ago,” he wrote on X. The concept of disparate impact, she said, prevents employers from excluding qualified candidates because of their race, gender or another protected characteristic.

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court set precedent when it unanimously ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. that the company could not use arbitrary tests or requirements in hiring and promotion if it could not prove they served a genuine business need. The court found that even if the company was not purposefully trying to discriminate based on race, if the policies had a discriminatory effect, they were illegal.

“There’s been an effort to say that with discrimination, the only kind of harm we care about is the egregious, smoking-gun evidence of animus or harassment, or where somebody is bigoted,” Yang said. “But there is often very significant harm to individuals from organizational practices that are discriminatory, yet very difficult to prove.”

While Trump’s executive order does not stop private individuals from suing over workplace and other kinds of discrimination. States and localities are also strengthening their nondiscrimination laws.

Read the April 24, 2025 Washington Post article.

<a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/still-life-business-roles-with-various-pawns_24749557.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=4&uuid=1b91fbd8-73b8-430c-92bd-eb1be0796a39&query=one+is+excluded+from+group">Image by freepik</a>.

Last Chance to Register for MCCR's Fair Housing Forum on Monday, April 28

 

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

Monday, April 28 10:00am to 3:00pm Fair Housing Forum​​ Howard County Community College Smith Theater 10901 Little Patuxent Parkway Columbia, Maryland 21044 Register Online Join us for an insightful and interactive forum focused on Maryland's Fair Housing Laws. This event offers a unique opportunity to discuss, share, and address key issues and solutions in our state

Victim of Discrimination? Training & Partnerships

UPCOMING EVENTS Thursday, April 17 at 1pm Civil Rights Coalition of Maryland - Virtual Open House #2 Registration Required: https://bit.ly/3E2lDwy

HOME      ABOUT MCCR      SERVICES      PUBLICATIONS      EVENTS      PRESS      CONTACT US

Unreleased HUD Letter Shows D.C. Housing Authority Failing Disabled Tenants

 

The D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA) is negotiating a resolution with the federal government after being ordered this past summer to fix extensive violations of federal laws regarding the treatment of people with disabilities, including sometimes taking years to handle requests for elevator access or adequate doorway space for wheelchairs. This is after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) condemned the authority for remaining “woefully out of compliance” with federal law and, in a letter on August 23rd, specified a series of steps it must take to remedy the failures. Among the city’s largest landlords, the authority serves about 30,000 households through housing vouchers and mixed-finance and traditional public housing properties.

The letter came after a HUD report in 2022 lambasted the authority for dozens of findings of faulty governance and poor performance. In addition to noncompliance with HUD fair housing regulations, that report also covered issues such as the agency’s extremely high public housing vacancy rate, dangerous and unsanitary conditions, and problems with how it calculated rents for low-income housing voucher holders. In 2022, then-D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) filed a lawsuit against the authority, alleging widespread discrimination against people with disabilities, some of whom the attorney general’s office said had waited as long as a decade for housing that met their needs. The suit remains ongoing.

The letter from HUD says that in 2023 it conducted on-site surveys of 33 public housing units out of over 700 that DCHA had said conformed to Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. None of the inspected units were fully compliant, HUD said. The violations included wheelchair ramps that exceeded maximum slopes, playgrounds that had no ramps at all, handrails that were nonexistent or at improper heights, and doorways narrow enough to make it difficult or impossible for wheelchair users or others with mobility issues to get through. In one case, a woman spent years in a public housing unit where the bathroom doorway was too narrow for her motorized wheelchair. The deficiency required the woman “to undergo a painful routine of propping herself up using upper body strength to get into and out of the bathroom multiple times each day.” In 2022, after the woman filed a complaint with HUD, the authority moved her to a unit with accessible features that had been vacant for nearly three years. In another case, a 74-year-old woman who had a full knee replacement lived in a third-floor apartment and requested to move to a building with an elevator. DCHA did not approve her request until more than two years later. The letter described maddening paperwork delays and demands for verification from doctors about disabilities that were evident, such as an 81-year-old woman’s difficulty maneuvering in her bathroom, creating a need for grab-bars at her toilet and shower. DCHA failed to maintain adequate paperwork to document compliance with federal law, the letter said, and at times did not cooperate with HUD’s investigation. In another case detailed in the letter, a woman began at-home dialysis, and DCHA approved a larger apartment for her to accommodate the necessary equipment. It then took the authority almost four months to issue the new voucher, despite repeated emails from her lawyer and a caseworker at Miriam’s Kitchen.

DCHA has a long history of failing to comply with federal laws designed to ensure that people with disabilities are not shut out of access to housing. In 2001, The Post wrote about children who lived in inaccessible D.C. public housing and were forced to drag themselves up steps. That year, HUD required the housing authority to make over 500 units accessible to people with disabilities after finding the authority never complied with federal accessibility legislation.

HUD’s letter in August specified corrective actions DCHA must take, including conducting a needs assessment of all tenants and applicants to its public housing and voucher programs. DCHA was required to revamp policies and training, retain an architect to survey properties, and install a full-time coordinator “with sufficient expertise and staff” to handle requests for reasonable accommodations from those with disabilities. HUD spokespeople did not respond to a message requesting comment about DCHA’s compliance. The federal agency’s efforts to follow up on the demands of its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, which focuses on eliminating housing discrimination, will be more complicated with the wave of recently-announced worker firings and spending cuts.

Burdo, the DCHA spokeswoman, said the housing authority’s steps so far have included moving its ADA compliance office to under the agency’s legal office, addressing requests from residents, examining its policies and trying to improve its data integrity. DCHA also has begun trying to hire an architect to confirm compliance of units with accessibility standards, Burdo said.

Sunny Desai, managing attorney at Legal Counsel for the Elderly, has advocated for DCHA clients for several years and spoken about the agency’s problems at D.C. Council housing committee meetings. He said intransigence, lack of transparency, and stonewalling were major problems under its past leadership. “They’re far more receptive” under Pettigrew, but change is not coming fast enough, Desai said.

Read the March 6, 2025 Washington Post article.

Marian Turski, Holocaust Survivor Who Warned Against Silence, 98

 

Marian Turski was a Polish Jew who survived Auschwitz and two death marches as a teenager and later became a resolute memory-keeper, civil rights advocate. and journalist, gathering testimony from other Holocaust survivors while warning younger generations against silence and indifference. For decades, Turski was among Poland’s most prominent living Holocaust survivors, recounting his story - and those of other Polish Jews he interviewed - while speaking out against hate and reminding the world of the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators. He battled against historical amnesia. 

Turski studied history at the University of Wroclaw and later traveled to the U.S. on a scholarship, joining the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activists in Alabama for the 1965 marches from Selma to Montgomery.

Just before his death, he returned to Auschwitz to address world leaders and European royals and warned in his speech against “a huge rise in antisemitism.” He said he felt a duty to confront neo-Nazis, including some he said he encountered at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in the 1960s, and to combat historical lies and revisionism, notably through an open letter he wrote to Mark Zuckerberg in 2020, urging the Facebook chief executive to ban Holocaust denial from his social media platform.

Turski and his parents were incarcerated in the Lodz Ghetto, an open-air prison and forced-labor site that eventually had 210,000 people, before being sent to the camps in 1944. Separated from his family, Turski was selected for forced labor at Auschwitz, the concentration and death camp complex in the south of German-occupied Poland. In January 1945, in what would be the waning months of the war in Europe, he and other prisoners were forcibly evacuated ahead of approaching Soviet forces, ordered on a death march toward the German interior.

Turski went on a second death march, this time to Theresienstadt, also known as Terezín, in German-occupied Czechoslovakia. When liberated by the Allies, he had contracted typhus and was near death, weighing 70 pounds. Unlike other survivors who immigrated to the U.S. or the British Mandate of Palestine, soon to become Israel, Turski stayed in Poland, where an estimated 90% of the country’s Jewish population had perished in the Holocaust. Among the dead were several dozen of his relatives, including his brother and father, who had both been killed in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. “I wanted to build a new society, to rebuild the country,” Turski recalled.

He became a member of the Polish Workers’ Party and served as an organizer, recruiting young people to the communist cause. While working as an editor at Polityka, a popular center-left newsmagazine, he grew disillusioned by the communist regime, accelerated when government officials waged an antisemitic campaign in 1968 and when Polish forces participated in a Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia later.

Turski published testimony from Holocaust survivors and worked with groups including the Jewish Historical Institute in Poland. To fill a “vacuum” of Jewish life in the country, he helped spearhead the creation of the POLIN Museum, showcasing 1,000 years of Jewish history in Poland. 

Into his 90s, Turski served as a member of the International Auschwitz Council, which advises the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, and as president of the International Auschwitz Committee, a survivor-led advocacy and education group that promotes awareness of Auschwitz-Birkenau, where 1.1 million people were murdered, including nearly 1 million Jews.

“Marian dedicated his life to ensuring that the world never forgets the horrors of the past,” Ronald Lauder, the cosmetics heir and president of the World Jewish Congress, said in a tribute. Turski, he added, “was a man who led by example, choosing good over evil, dialogue over conflict, and understanding over hostility.”

At a ceremony commemorating the 75th anniversary of Auschwitz’s liberation, he urged the gathered dignitaries to remember that “Auschwitz did not fall from the sky” but “began with small forms of persecution.” He went on to cite what he called “the 11th Commandment”: “Don’t be indifferent.” “Do not be indifferent when you hear lies, historical lies,” he said. “Do not be indifferent when you see the past is stretched to fit the current political needs. Do not be indifferent when any minority is discriminated against.”

Read the February 20, 2025 Washington Post article.

(Photograph courtesy of the POLIN Museum.)

State Legislature Creates a Maryland Reparations Commission, One of Few States with a Statewide Panel

 

The House of Delegates has given final approval on April 2nd to a bill that would create a Maryland Reparations Commission, sending the measure to the governor for his signature. The 101-36 party-line vote would make Maryland one of the few states in the nation with a statewide body to study the inequality endured by African descendants. California became the first state in 2020 to pass legislation; then Illinois in 2021 and New York in 2023. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges' Center for Health Justice (ACHJ), as of March 6, 2024, 22 localities (including Washington, D.C.) have approved a reparations commission or task force and 11 states have introduced legislation to create one.

If approved, the Maryland commission would assess specific federal, state and local policies from 1877 to 1965, the post-Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras. Those years “have led to economic disparities based on race, including housing segregation and discrimination, redlining, restrictive covenants, and tax policies,” according to the bill. The commission would also examine how public and private institutions may have benefited from those policies, and would recommend appropriate reparations, which could include statements of apology, monetary compensation, social service assistance, business incentives and child care costs. The all-volunteer commission would consist of 23 people, including two employees from the state’s four historically Black colleges and universities with expertise in the history of slavery; a representative from the Maryland Lynching Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and the state archivist or a designee from that office.

A hearing on the Maryland Senate version was first held on February 27th and then approved by the full chamber on March 14th. The bill would go into effect July 1st and remain in effect until June 30, 2028.

You can view a discussion with Dr. Jamal Bryant and the Reverend Dr. Robert Turner, NAARC Commissioner and Pastor of Empowerment Temple, Baltimore, on the “Let’s Be Clear” Podcast. They explore reparations, the intersection of faith and justice, and the significance of the Tulsa race massacre centennial. Dr. Turner recounts his 1,169-mile advocacy journey and highlights the ongoing fight for equity and reparative justice. Source: The Jamal Bryant Podcast “Let’s Be Clear,” YouTube. It was made available by the National African American Reparations Commission (NAARC).

Read the April 3, 2025 Maryland Matters article.

Read the April 2024 ACHJ article about reparations.

Civil Rights Coalition of Maryland to Hold Virtual Open Houses on April 4th and 17th

 

REGISTER TODAY & JOIN MCCR'S VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE Friday, April 4 at 1pm or Thursday, April 17 at 1pm In today's challenging times, it is important now more than ever that we come together in order to protect and promote our civil and human rights won in hard fought victories over many decades. For the benefit of all Marylanders, the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights will be relaunching Civil Rights Coalition of Maryland. Are you interested in learning more about the Civil Rights Coalition of Maryland and becoming a member? Please register and join MCCR at one of our virtual informational open houses! Please note - membership on the Civil Rights Coalition of Maryland will be reserved for organizations, agencies, nonprofits, and other stakeholder groups that want to work collaboratively to advance civil rights for all Marylanders. Private individuals will not be given membership on the Coalition.

Victim of Discrimination? Training & Partnerships

HOME      ABOUT MCCR      SERVICES      PUBLICATIONS      EVENTS      PRESS      CONTACT US

Maryland Commission on Civil Rights to Hold "Conversations & Cinemas" on March 22nd

 

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

Join the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights and Baltimore County Public Library as we celebrate Women's History Month by viewing Netflix’s SIX TRIPLE EIGHT, and enjoy a panel discussion featuring women veterans on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the military provide both personal insights and actionable recommendations. We will explore the the advancements made by women, for women and the future of women in the Armed Forces for the United States. Baltimore County Public Library, Owings Mills Branch 10302 Grand Central Avenue Owings Mills, MD 21117 Saturday, March 22, 2pm to 5pm REGISTER TODAY Question? Email MCCR's Education & Outreach Unit at mccr.outreach@maryland.gov for assistance!

Victim of Discrimination? Training & Partnerships

HOME      ABOUT MCCR      SERVICES      PUBLICATIONS      EVENTS      PRESS      CONTACT US