On-the-Go Scanning with Office Lens

As many of us continue to work from home, accessing the right tech tools — software and hardware — is essential but not always easy. For instance, how do you share digital scans of printed documents without having access to a document scanner? Of course you can always buy a desktop scanner or an all-in-one printing device, but perhaps you need to scan on the go, or you just don’t want to spend money on hardware that takes up space and might not be needed once we all return to work. As an alternative, the Harris County Law Library recommends Microsoft Office Lens, a free scanning app for your Apple or Android device that allows you to scan on the go and save your scanned documents to your phone, tablet, or the cloud. It also integrates with Microsoft’s Office 365 software, the cloud-based suite of office applications that’s available by subscription for an annual or monthly fee.

Office Lens is our scanning app of choice for its quality, reliability, consistency, and ease of use. Other scanning options do exist, and you may find one that you like better, but we’ve been using — and recommending — Office Lens to library patrons who need a quick and easy scanning solution from a trusted brand ever since a solo attorney at one of our Hands-on Legal Tech Training classes suggested that we try it out. We did, and we liked it!

It’s a great tool for digitizing and storing receipts, business cards, or other printed documents. Simply snap a photo using the camera on your phone or tablet, capturing it as a whiteboard, a document, a business card, or a photo. Then, edit the image by cropping, rotating, or adding text. Finally, store the image as a PDF file or a Word document, and share it as needed.

There are many other reliable and recommended scanning apps available, but Office Lens is our app of choice. For a good list of additional tech tools and resources, take a look at the ABA Legal Technology Buyer’s Guide as well as the Harris County Law Library’s Legal Tech Institute page of Legal Tech Links.

Landmark SCOTUS Ruling Protects LGBT Workers

In an earlier post today, we marked the signing of the Magna Carta and recognized the impact it had on our rights as set forth in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today, 805 years later, our nation takes another leap in its recognition of basic civil rights for its citizens. According to our nation’s highest court, employers who fire gay or transgender persons simply on the basis of their homosexual or transgender status violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This morning, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision protecting members of the LGBTQ community from employment discrimination. In each of the cases that forms the basis of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a long-time employee was fired for simply being gay or transgender. Each employee filed an action under Title VII, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. In two of the cases, the appellate courts ruled that such discrimination did violate Title VII. However, with respect to the third case, the Eleventh Circuit found that the law does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay. In determining the ordinary public meaning of Title VII’s mandate that employers not discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, the Supreme Court held that

An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

In so holding, the Court rejected an argument that in ordinary parlance firing a person for being gay or transgender did not amount to discrimination on the basis of sex because the fired individual would probably admit that they were fired on those grounds rather than because of their sex. Additionally, the Court dismissed an argument that discrimination based on one’s status as gay or transgender did not rise to the level of the disparate treatment showing required because there was no intentional discrimination based on sex on the part of the employer. The Court disagreed, finding that Title VII focuses on discrimination of individuals, not groups. Additionally, the Court stated that just because homosexuality and transgender status are not specifically included on the list of protected characteristics does not necessarily mean that the they are implicitly excluded.

Looking Back - From a Field to the Bill of Rights

It all began in a field. It seems strange to say that modern democracy was born in a simple meadow somewhere between Windsor and Staines. Back on June 15, 1215, in a meadow at Runnymeade, King John of England and a group of rebellious barons that had been threatening civil war signed a peace treaty. Little did they know at the time the lasting effect that this treaty, known later as the Great Charter or Magna Carta, would have not only at the time but hundreds of years later across a wide span of ocean in a land just finding its way. The Magna Carta, with its espousal of principles of liberty, inspired America’s Founding Fathers to include those rights in the United States Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. One of the central tenets of the Magna Carta, the protection from loss of life, liberty, or property without due process of law , provided the central theme for the declaration of individual rights set out in the Bill Rights. Other important rights and liberties stemming from this historic document are the right to trial by jury, the right to a speedy trial, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom from excessive fines or bail, and freedom from compulsory self-incrimination. The foundation for the notion of habeas corpus can also be found in the Magna Carta.

To learn more about Magna Carta and to see copies of one of the most important legal documents in history, check out these digital exhibits and resources:

Harris County Law Library’s Magna Carta: A Digital Exhibit

Library of Congress’s Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor

National Archives: Magna Carta

British Library: Magna Carta

Love One Another

National Loving Day could not have come at a better time this year. With the nation fatigued by a global pandemic and suffering from the effects of racial injustice, our country needs a time to heal. National Loving Day, celebrated each June 12, commemorates the anniversary of the landmark 1967 United States Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Court struck down Virginia statutes that criminalized and otherwise prevented marriages between persons solely on the basis of race. The Court held:

Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man', fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (Case citations omitted).

In Loving v. Virginia, Virginia residents Mildred Jeter and Richard P. Loving were legally married in the District of Columbia. Shortly after returning to Virginia, the Lovings were charged with violating the state’s ban on interracial marriage. The couple pleaded guilty, and their jail sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. The Lovings filed an action in the District of Columbia to vacate the judgment. Eventually, the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, whose decision recognized the fundamental right to marry regardless of race. The Loving decision became instrumental in another landmark case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex couples the same right to marry as every other couple and recognized the validity of those marriages already existing.

Loving Day began initially as a graduate thesis project at Parsons School of Design in New York City after its founder, he himself a person of interracial and intercultural heritage, accidentally discovered the Loving case. Loving Day has since expanded into a global network of Loving Day celebrations seeking to fight racial prejudice through education, build a multicultural community, and promote multicultural awareness. So on this National Loving Day 2020, let’s keep that mission alive and learn to respect and love one another.

Vote By Mail in Texas? It's Up to You.

Vote by mail is still a hot button issue in Texas, especially as the date for the primary runoffs rapidly approaches. In case you haven’t heard, in April, a district court judge in Travis County entered a temporary order enjoining the Travis County Clerk from rejecting any applications for mail-in ballots from individuals claiming a disability as a result of the COVID-19 virus or from tabulating ballots submitted by those claiming such disability.

A lot has happened since we last wrote about that April 17 district court order. Let’s review some of the key actions and decisions:

• Soon after the district court’s order, the State appealed, effectively staying the temporary order issued by the district court.

• The Texas Attorney General published a letter on May 1, 2020, offering guidance on the mail-in ballot issue by stating that “fear of contracting COVID-19 unaccompanied by a qualifying sickness or physical condition does not constitute a disability under the Texas Election Code for purposes of receiving a ballot by mail.”

• On May 5, appellees filed an emergency motion to enforce the original temporary injunction.

• On May 14, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals agreed with the expansion of mail-in ballot rights, at least temporarily. The appellate court concluded that the temporary order was necessary to preserve the parties’ rights and held that the temporary injunction issued by the district court would remain in effect until the matter was officially disposed.

• The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed, however. In an opinion delivered on May 27, 2020, the Court held that a voter’s lack of immunity to COVID-19 did not satisfy the disability requirement of the Texas Election Code. Plaintiffs have since filed a motion to have their interlocutory appeal dismissed. The motion came on the heels of a notice of nonsuit that was filed with the Fourteenth Court of Appeals after the Supreme Court of Texas rendered its decision. (To see some other key documents relating to the vote by mail litigation, click here.)

As this issue was winding its way through the state judicial system, there was a parallel case pending in the federal court. The Texas Democratic Party and interested voters filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging among other things that the denial of the right to vote by mail for eligible voters under the age of 65 during the COVID-19 pandemic amounted to a violation of federal constitutional rights. The federal court ordered that any eligible voter seeking to vote by mail to avoid transmission of the coronavirus was entitled to do so. Furthermore, the court issued the requested preliminary injunction. Upon motion by the State, the preliminary injunction was stayed pending appeal by the United States District Court for Fifth Circuit in an opinion filed on June 4, 2020.

So, where does this leave Texas voters? It seems that they might be on their own to decide.