Accreditation Status Employment Discrimination?

[Ozark_Sophist]

Again, my school IS accredited by two separate California state (CBE) and Western U.S. regional associations (WASC), just not ABA, since you all seem to keep missing this point.

If you were right, a job seeker without a college degree could automatically sue any employer advertising a position that requires a degree even if the job seeker was well qualified through practical experience. Or has a BS in sociology when the job classification calls for a BA in management.

 

[tranquility]

Sometimes people will settle even if there is a chance (or as you all seem to think, a likelihood) that they will prevail in court, just to avoid the hassle and possibility, however slight, of losing. My claim is not frivolous and it could very well be that the Supreme Court would broaden the horizons of actionable discrimination to encompass this type as well. Failing to even consider a candidate simply on the basis of his or her school's accreditation status is clearly discriminatory. Whether it is a kind of discrimination that is constitutional or unconstitutional is the question. I rather think a firm or company might be inclined to hire a person who raised such a claim rather than be bothered with litigating it.

Except, most civil rights violation statutes you'd sue under have a attorney's fees provision. While designed to encourage plaintiffs, they are written in a neutral manner and if the lawsuit if frivilous, malicious or otherwise without merit, they would be able to get some compensation. Most discrimination is legal. Employers like discriminating against those who got low grades in school. Discriminating against those with criminal records. Discriminating against those who went to the local university rather than Stanford. All those are entirely legal and the Constitution has noting to say about it.

Your theory is clearly in error. ABA accrediation is important to some firms for specific, articulable and non-discriminatory reasons. Rational basis. Some firms will only hire the very top students from big name schools like Yale. Discrimination? Please.

 

[lya]

What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA

I attend a California and WASC accredited law school. It is not ABA accredited.

I recently saw a "law clerk" job ad from which the following is quoted:

"Must be a law student finishing 2d year and heading into third year of ABA accredited law school." Yes, that describes me exactly... all except for the ABA accredited part.

The list of other "qualifications" includes:

"experience doing legal research" CHECK.
"Law Review or Moot Court experience" CHECK.
"excellent computer skills, expertise in use of Word and Excel" CHECK. CHECK. CHECK.
"must have excellent research and writing skills" Ok, that's redundant, but CHECK, anyway.

So, by my own assessment of my skills and experience, I at least "qualify" for an interview and probably for the job itself, in all but one respect... going to an ABA accredited law school.

Having had Constitutional Law, concerns of an Equal Protection Clause violation have raised themselves and I'm wondering if I should apply for the job and then call them on the discriminatory selection process when I don't get interviewed or if I do get an interview, don't get the job.

Yes, I know there are a dozen ways to obfuscate and dress up a decision made on the basis of prejudice and discriminatory intent, but somebody has to fight the good fight.

So my question: Do any of you also think that employment discrimination on the basis of "law school accreditation status" is unconstitutional?

Thanks for your input.



What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA

Why would someone who "qualifies" for a law clerk position need to ask anyone this question? homework assignment, maybe?

 

[O00O]

And what are those?

Your theory is clearly in error.

My legal writing professor always said that if you feel the need to use the adverb "clearly" to describe something, then it is not really clear at all and you should elaborate rather than be conclusory.

ABA accrediation is important to some firms for specific, articulable and non-discriminatory reasons.

And those are?

Herein lies the very essence of the matter. So please, enlighten us.

 

[O00O]

If you were right, a job seeker without a college degree could automatically sue any employer advertising a position that requires a degree even if the job seeker was well qualified through practical experience. Or has a BS in sociology when the job classification calls for a BA in management.

This argument is an example of a classic logical fallacy... the Straw Man argument:

You're attempting to equate two disparate ideas...

1. job requires degree vs. candidate has no degree

and

2. job requires a candidate's school to have a particular associational status vs. otherwise qualified candidate's school doesn't have said status.

Your example (1.) is obviously allowable discrimination. But you try to make this easily proven argument analogous to my original posited situation, when the two are readily distinguishable.

 

[fairisfair]

I'm having trouble understanding how it is that you people equate WASC and CBE accreditation with being "unaccredited." The ABA is not the only game in town.

Your responses are typical for this forum.

I asked a question about a year ago (different moniker) about an illegal metal shop business in a residence and got the same typical responses... "Move out!" "Forget about it." "Good luck." ...ad nauseum.

In the end, I asserted my tenants' rights to be compensated due to his breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the warranty of habitability because the unit, due to the illegal business and associated equipment, was in violation of several health and safety code sections. In order to AVOID an appointment with the City building inspectors (and the probable loss of his little home-based business), my landlord settled with me and I didn't pay a dime in rent for 4 full months until I moved out. This came to $3600 in my pocket that would NOT have found its way there if I had listened to the "sage-like" advice from the learned users of this forum.

Sometimes people will settle even if there is a chance (or as you all seem to think, a likelihood) that they will prevail in court, just to avoid the hassle and possibility, however slight, of losing. My claim is not frivolous and it could very well be that the Supreme Court would broaden the horizons of actionable discrimination to encompass this type as well. Failing to even consider a candidate simply on the basis of his or her school's accreditation status is clearly discriminatory. Whether it is a kind of discrimination that is constitutional or unconstitutional is the question. I rather think a firm or company might be inclined to hire a person who raised such a claim rather than be bothered with litigating it.

Again, my school IS accredited by two separate California state (CBE) and Western U.S. regional associations (WASC), just not ABA, since you all seem to keep missing this point.

Really?? posting under different monikers are you?? That is a blatant disregard of the rules of this forum.

 

[mitousmom]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution controls the actions of governments, not individual employers.

An employer can establish what appear to be arbitrary qualifications for employment as long as the qualifications don't violate an employment law. If a law firm wants to limit its selection pool only to candidates from an ABA accredited law school, it can.

Contrary to your implication, ABA accreditation and WASC accreditation are not the same. The ABA accreditation process determines whether a law school conforms to the ABA's standards and proports to insure a level of national uniformity in legal education and practice. In most states, a law school graduate cannot take the state bar exam without having attended an ABA-approved school.

From what I can determine, WASC accreditation is not specifically for law schools, but covers senior colleges and universities in California, Hawaii, Guam and the Pacific Basin. I couldn't find any information on how the process addresses legal education.

The decision to attend a WASC accredited law school was your decision. It appears that your decision may limit your employment opportunities and the states in which you can practice law.

 

[tranquility]

My legal writing professor always said that if you feel the need to use the adverb "clearly" to describe something, then it is not really clear at all and you should elaborate rather than be conclusory.

Your legal writing professor may be part of the reason why an ABA accrediation is a good thing. You have no case law to support your position. Current case law is entirely against you. You have to make up a cause of action out of whole cloth. That's what I mean by "clearly". There is nothing you can point to to support your position. Nothing.


Regarding the "value" of ABA:

And those are?

When will you be able to take the bar in another state?

That is a practical, statutory reason. To not find any other reasons, you would have to argue that ABA accrediation has no value. Good luck with that. There are a whole bunch of lawyers who spend innumberable hours coming up with items needed for accrediation. Are they doing it just for fun? Why are they doing it? Because these skilled and knowledgable attorneys feel such items are needed for a good legal education. I would say a group would be protected it they relied on ABA accrediation for appointment of a judge or hiring of a law clerk. I'm not going to discuss the potential value, as a panel of experts have already determined the value. Hire your experts. Fight the ABA. Stop wasting everyone's time without making some cognizable claim.

 

[O00O]

Cognize this.

Your legal writing professor may be part of the reason why an ABA accrediation [sic] is a good thing.

Ad Hominem. You're almost as bad as Ozark Sophistry with the personal attacks. That in and of itself speaks volumes.

When will you be able to take the bar in another state?

This is entirely off-topic.

I'm taking the bar exam and practicing law in CALIFORNIA. But if I wanted to take the bar in another state, I could attend an ABA LLM program (in CA or elsewhere) and then take the bar in any state. Otherwise, I can practice for five years in CA then petition for admittance in any other state as well... without taking the bar again in the new state.

There are a whole bunch of lawyers who spend innumberable [sic] hours coming up with items needed for accrediation [sic]. Are they doing it just for fun? Why are they doing it? Because these skilled and knowledgable [sic] attorneys feel such items are needed for a good legal education. I would say a group would be protected it they relied on ABA accrediation [sic] for appointment of a judge or hiring of a law clerk. I'm not going to discuss the potential value, as a panel of experts have already determined the value.

First, you'll want to spell-check next time.

Next, I agree that accreditation has a gatekeeping function and assures minimal standards of competency and education. That's the whole point. An individual's competence and legal knowledge and abilities are only partially determined by the school he or she attends. The effort and time put into studying and assimilating the material is the major factor that determines a student's proficiency.

Again, my point is that student A could go to an ABA school and student B could go to a non-ABA school and student B still comes out the other end of the grinder a better attorney than student A because he or she worked harder and/or are simply smarter.

I was admitted to ABA schools as well as the non-ABA school I ultimately chose to attend based on location and political considerations not relevant to the present discussion.

It is still my position that an employer who, when hiring for a law clerk position, will not even consider a non-ABA law student (even though they are a local CA employer and the student DOES go to a school that is accredited by the CA Committee of Bar Examiners and WASC) is committing unconstitutional employment discrimination.

Is that cognizable enough for you?

 

[garrula lingua]

I'm taking the bar exam and practicing law in CALIFORNIA. But if I wanted to take the bar in another state, I could attend an ABA LLM program (in CA or elsewhere) and then take the bar in any state. Otherwise, I can practice for five years in CA then petition for admittance in any other state as well... without taking the bar again in the new state.

That's incorrect.
As I attended an ABA law school, I could take the 'attorney admission exam' in Texas (which only consists of the ethics portion of the bar - the PMBR). I did not have to take the Multi-State, the essay or the performance portion of the bar exam. (Also, at least ten years of full-time practice of law was required).
Any persons who attended a non-ABA lawschool, had to take the full Texas bar (regardless of how many years in practice).

Also, you are mistaken - CA does not offer reciprosity to attorneys from other states, ergo, it's very limited (even for an ABA grad) as to states which admit attys w/out full bar exams.

I attended a WASC accredited law school for several semesters, after work, at night, until I received my LSAT results & decided to just drop the credits and enroll in an ABA law school.

At the non-accredited school, my fellow students were intelligent & hard-working (most had full-time jobs and families) and were adept at a pragmatic application of the law (good shirt-sleeve lawyers).
At the ABA school, the students and faculty were more immersed in tbe theory of law & proud of their history of having the most sitting Judges.

I met first-class lawyers at both schools.

I changed schools because of the limitation of non-ABA accreditation.
You were aware (as was I) of that limitation when you enrolled in your school.

I sympathize with you, but you appear to have confused 'unfair' with 'unconstifutional'.
Much in life is unfair.
People from humbler backgrounds (they don't have the connections) have a tougher time being accepted at firms or for clerkships ...unfair ? yes. unconstitutional ? no.

Try to interview with a top-notch law firm with that JD - you won't get a peek into the firm.
It won't matter that you are as intelligent as whomever they interview.

You may be the better lawyer, but the credentials still count to the people hiring. You'll have to establish yourself in court before you're given the same respect as an ABA graduate.

As far as the ABA standards, you are right - they do provide a gate-keeping function. The non-ABA school had fewer professors, more part-time teachers, a smaller library, etc.
Also, CA is notoriously easy to establish non-ABA schools: one (terrible) lawyer I know has established his own law school and has earned +$$$$$ via tuition from people who don't have Bachelors degrees and can't even pass the Baby Bar.
Now, if one of those students passes the bar & is brilliant, will s/he be treated the same as you - a WASC student ? no. Do you think that's unfair ?
Does your school's WASC credential make you the smarter lawyer ? No. But, that's the way it is - life isn't fair.
Establish your credentials in court - that levels all playing fields.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

You're attempting to equate two disparate ideas...

1. job requires degree vs. candidate has no degree

No, like this...

1. job requires degree from a specifically accrediated school vs. candidate has a degree from a school with alternative accrediation.

The job sees the lack of appropriate accrediation the same as lacking a degree in the first place.

Say, are you missing a pair of $64 million pants?

 

[ecmst12]

It is still my position that an employer who, when hiring for a law clerk position, will not even consider a non-ABA law student (even though they are a local CA employer and the student DOES go to a school that is accredited by the CA Committee of Bar Examiners and WASC) is committing unconstitutional employment discrimination.

Is that cognizable enough for you?

Good for you. If the other posters here haven't convinced you that you're wrong, then good luck taking the employer to court on that theory. Let us know how far you get.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Good for you. If the other posters here haven't convinced you that you're wrong, then good luck taking the employer to court on that theory. Let us know how far you get.

And how such action affects future job prospects.

 

[mitousmom]

It is still my position that an employer who, when hiring for a law clerk position, will not even consider a non-ABA law student (even though they are a local CA employer and the student DOES go to a school that is accredited by the CA Committee of Bar Examiners and WASC) is committing unconstitutional employment discrimination.

I would agree that the employer is committing employment discrimination. However, it is neither unconstitutional nor violaltive of any of the EEO laws.

What's WASC's opinion on the legality or constitutionality of an employer's refusal to consider for hire graduates of the law schools they have accredited? It seems to me that this is their fight.

 

[tranquility]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tranquility
Your legal writing professor may be part of the reason why an ABA accrediation [sic] is a good thing.

Ad Hominem. You're almost as bad as Ozark Sophistry with the personal attacks. That in and of itself speaks volumes.

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy and your use of the term here is in error. If I said the comment was false because your professor was a doofus, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. I said the advice was false and that, because of that, perhaps the person who gave you the advice is one source of the *reason* why ABA accredation is important. Your appeal to authority when you referred to your professor regarding the use of "cleary" is a logical fallacy. However, by claiming the attack as Ad Hominem, you must show that the use of "clearly" is an example of weak writing. I feel this is impossible as when something is clear, clearly is a wonderful term to use. So, logically, either your professor did not distinguish his advice well enough or you did not understand his advice. If you did not understand his meaning when you used it as an example, I apologize to your professor for any thought that non-ABA accredited schools have a different level and training for their instructors from those with ABA accredation.

Originally Posted by tranquility
When will you be able to take the bar in another state?

This is entirely off-topic.

I'm taking the bar exam and practicing law in CALIFORNIA. But if I wanted to take the bar in another state, I could attend an ABA LLM program (in CA or elsewhere) and then take the bar in any state. Otherwise, I can practice for five years in CA then petition for admittance in any other state as well... without taking the bar again in the new state.

No, you miss my point. Why is this (when you can take the bar in other states) so? Is is simple uniformity of training, or is it an assurance that some level of training occurred? The states feel ABA accredation is valuable as a matter of law. That seems on topic to the question of the generally accepted value of ABA accredation.

First, you'll want to spell-check next time.

I choose not to. Just as I choose to not edit for tense agreement, active voice, punctuation or other grammatical error. To you, this is of overriding importance and want to consider all things. To me, it is a moment where I challenge and share knowledge. If I were to spell check and otherwise write with careful editing, others may not gain the "value" from what I offer for free. (Value is in quotes as people may take my postings as they will. Some have found use to them and others have not.)

An individual's competence and legal knowledge and abilities are only partially determined by the school he or she attends. The effort and time put into studying and assimilating the material is the major factor that determines a student's proficiency.

I agree wholeheartedly. But, this is what everyone's been telling *you*. This is why you lose. You cannot make the claim the school you went to means nothing.

Again, my point is that student A could go to an ABA school and student B could go to a non-ABA school and student B still comes out the other end of the grinder a better attorney than student A because he or she worked harder and/or are simply smarter.

Except for the ability to take the bar, isn't this argument always true? Can an employer demand a high school or college degree? I mean, a lot of smart people haven't gone to college. Can an employer determine it is not statistically worth his time to interview them for a job he feels requires a diploma? From a good school? Heck, from the school he attended?

I was admitted to ABA schools as well as the non-ABA school I ultimately chose to attend based on location and political considerations not relevant to the present discussion

.
OOh. That had to hurt. Showing such poor judgment for a lifetime choice based on location and politics. (Having also attended a school of a type you have, I'm not saying your attendance there was an error, as I'm quite happy with the result for me; what I'm saying that if you had a goal of law clerk, you made a poor choice.)

It is still my position that an employer who, when hiring for a law clerk position, will not even consider a non-ABA law student (even though they are a local CA employer and the student DOES go to a school that is accredited by the CA Committee of Bar Examiners and WASC) is committing unconstitutional employment discrimination.

Is that cognizable enough for you?

I don't think it is. I think you could very well lose with a demurrer for failing to state a claim. I'm not sure what facts you could develop which would get things to summary judgment stage.