|
Episode: 5 Production #: 105 First Air Date: October 23, 2001 Writer: Peter Parnell Director: Peter Levin Guest Stars:
Nicholas Downs as Wall Guy
Fan Rating: --/10 (Average of all fan submitted ratings) Synopsis: Fallin & Assoc. defend a longtime client in a sexual harassment case and put junior associate, Amanda, in first chair to win over the jury. At CLS, Alvin and Laurie Solt give Nick a new case - a gay teenager who is looking for guardianship. A previous judge ruled against a gay couple becoming his guardians and both Nick and the boy, Ethan, know that that's the best place for him. Nick tries to argue the case again but unfortunately, he gets the same result. Case Law: This episode deals thematically with issues of power arising out of a sexual harassment lawsuit and a foster care placement of a gay teenager with two gay men. Social Services agencies in Pennsylvania have broad discretion with respect to who they certify as foster care parents. Since sexual orientation is not a constitutionally "protected class" potential gay foster care parents may find it hard to challenge the decision of a court denying placement on the grounds of their sexual preference. In the area of adoption (which is not the same as foster care placement, but may be the long term goal) the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in In Re Adoption of RBF and RCF has held that a gay partner does not have the right to adopt the child of his or her partner where the partner does not first relinquish their parental rights. In addition, foster parents by the nature of their temporary role rarely have standing to challenge a custody decision unless they have looked after a child for such a long time that they have acquired rights" in loco parentis." In this episode, Suzanna Clemens decides to sue under Pennsylvania's civil rights laws. Most sex discrimination cases are brought under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. In one scene there is an argument over the introduction of the plaintiff's past sexual history. In federal court, Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence precludes such evidence of the victim's past unless it can be shown that the evidence's probative value outweighs its prejudicial value. In practice, an objection of this nature probably would not arise in open court because the parties would have litigated the matter in an in limine motion before a judge.
|