right to presentation and representation

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Self-Representation

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Annotations

Self-Representation. —The Court has held that the Sixth Amendment, in addition to guaranteeing the right to retained or appointed counsel, also guarantees a defendant the right to represent himself. 378 It is a right the defendant must adopt knowingly and intelligently; under some circumstances the trial judge may deny the authority to exercise it, as when the defendant simply lacks the competence to make a knowing or intelligent waiver of counsel or when his self-representation is so disruptive of orderly procedures that the judge may curtail it. 379 The right applies only at trial; there is no constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction. 380

The essential elements of self-representation were spelled out in McKaskle v. Wiggins , 381 a case involving the self-represented defendant’s rights vis-a-vis “standby counsel” appointed by the trial court. The “core of the Faretta right” is that the defendant “is entitled to preserve actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury,” and consequently, standby counsel’s participation “should not be allowed to destroy the jury’s perception that the defendant is representing himself.” 382 But participation of standby counsel even in the jury’s presence and over the defendant’s objection does not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights when serving the basic purpose of aiding the defendant in complying with routine courtroom procedures and protocols and thereby relieving the trial judge of these tasks. 383

378 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). An invitation to overrule Faretta because it leads to unfair trials for defendants was declined in Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 2388 (2008). Even if the defendant exercises his right to his detriment, the Constitution ordinarily guarantees him the opportunity to do so. A defendant who represents himself cannot thereafter complain that the quality of his defense denied him effective assistance of counsel. 422 U.S. at 834–35 n.46. The Court, however, has not addressed what state aid, such as access to a law library, might need to be made available to a defendant representing himself. Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005) (per curiam). Related to the right of self-representation is the right to testify in one’s own defense. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony violates right).

379 The fact that a defendant is mentally competent to stand trial does not preclude a court from finding him not mentally competent to represent himself at trial. Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379 (2008). Mental competence to stand trial, however, is sufficient to ensure the right to waive the right to counsel in order to plead guilty. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 398 (1993).

380 Martinez v. Court of App. of Cal., Fourth App. Dist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000). The Sixth Amendment itself “does not include any right to appeal.” 528 U.S. at 160.

381 465 U.S. 168 (1984).

382 465 U.S. at 178.

383 465 U.S. at 184.

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Examining the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation

On July 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Lee , decided Daniel T. Lee’s Sixth Amendment claim under Faretta v. California , a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a criminal defendant’s right to represent herself. In Lee , the defendant, after filing a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence (through an attorney), moved to be allowed to discharge his attorney, waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and proceed pro se (i.e., representing himself). The magistrate judge who ultimately conducted the suppression hearing ordered that the hearing proceed with the defendant represented by counsel. At the conclusion of that hearing, the magistrate judge recommended to the district judge that the motion to suppress be denied and that the defendant be permitted to represent himself at trial, and the district judge accepted both recommendations.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that Lee suffered a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at his suppression motion and ruled that it would be inappropriate to apply harmless error analysis to the violation. In this column, I will consider the Seventh Circuit’s decision and examine more broadly why it might be valuable to have a right to self-representation (a right the exercise of which generally hinders, rather than helps, a criminal defendant’s case).

Self-Representation and Harmless Error Analysis

In Faretta , the U.S. Supreme Court announced that competent defendants have a Sixth Amendment entitlement to discharge counsel and represent themselves during criminal proceedings. This right was controversial, as Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun each filed dissents (both of which the other and Justice Rehnquist joined). But the contrary view prevailed.

We began this discussion with Lee’s case, which considered the defendant’s claims that he was entitled to represent himself at his suppression hearing and that the denial of that right should not be subject to harmless error analysis. Harmless error is a conclusion that courts are authorized to draw about many of the (inevitable) errors that judges make in presiding over criminal matters, where the error can often be said to have had no effect on the outcome of the proceeding. When there has been harmless error, the verdict or other outcome remains in place, while a finding of reversible error yields a reversal and perhaps the opportunity to repeat the trial or other proceeding without the error in question.

A finding of harmless error in a case involving a constitutional violation requires that the prosecutor prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not affect the outcome. Once the prosecutor meets that burden, even an egregious constitutional violation may not lead to a reversal and retrial. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Arizona v. Fulminante that when a judge, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, admits a defendant’s coerced confession into evidence at his trial, that error could, in theory, be harmless if the prosecutor were able to satisfy the burden of proving that the outcome would have been the same had the confession been properly excluded.

Some errors, however, are always reversible and not subject to harmless error analysis at all. One example occurs when the judge gives a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction in a criminal case. Such an error, under Sullivan v. Louisiana , is not subject to harmless error analysis. Another example is the denial of counsel. Such errors are structural and call into question the fairness and legitimacy of the entire proceeding in a way that cannot be readily severed from the rest of the process to determine their particular impact.

A denial of the right to self-representation is similar to these other errors in that having an (unwanted) attorney representing the defendant fundamentally alters the entire proceeding rather than constituting a discrete error subject to conceptual severance from the rest of the (legitimately conducted) process. In one respect, however, a denial of the right to self-representation is quite different from the other types of automatically reversible error: being represented by counsel almost always reduces the odds of conviction relative to self-representation. That is, unlike other structural errors, it would be most accurate to describe the denial of Faretta rights as likely to be harmless (in the sense of posing no increased risk of conviction) and perhaps best characterized as “helpful error.” As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in McKaskle v. Wiggins , then, “[s]ince the right of self-representation is a right that, when exercised, usually increases the likelihood of a trial outcome unfavorable to the defendant, its denial is not amenable to ‘harmless error’ analysis,” an explanation aptly quoted by the Seventh Circuit in Lee .

In Lee’s case, because he did have the opportunity to represent himself at trial, the Seventh Circuit ruled that he was entitled not to a new trial but to a new suppression hearing, where he would be able to argue to the district court in favor of suppressing the evidence that his attorney unsuccessfully challenged at his first suppression motion. If Lee fails (as the court plainly expects him to do), then he will have to live with the conviction. As the court said in Lee , “[a]llowed to do that [to redo his suppression motion, this time representing himself], he obtains everything to which he’s entitled.”

Does This Right Make Sense?

The court of appeals’ analysis is sound. Lee was denied his right of self-representation at the suppression motion, and the proper remedy for this type of error is to allow Lee to redo the motion on his own. But a perhaps more basic question may arise out of this Faretta case, namely, should a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to act in a way that increases the odds of his being found guilty?

“No” might be the correct answer to this question. In the words of Justice Blackmun, dissenting in Faretta , “[i]f there is any truth to the old proverb that ‘one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,’ the Court by its opinion today now bestows a constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself.” A primary objective of the criminal justice system is to ensure that innocent people are acquitted of crimes that they did not in fact commit. Allowing a defendant (who might be innocent) to represent herself seriously compromises this central objective. In Chief Justice Burger’s words in his Faretta dissent, “Both [judge and prosecutor] are charged with the duty of insuring that justice, in the broadest sense of that term, is achieved in every criminal trial. That goal is ill-served, and the integrity of and public confidence in the system are undermined, when an easy conviction is obtained due to the defendant’s ill-advised decision to waive counsel.”

And a misguided defendant who believes—without foundation—that she can do a good job of representing herself in a courtroom should perhaps be protected from her foolishness rather than permitted to indulge it. Again from Chief Justice Burger’s dissent: “The system of criminal justice should not be available as an instrument of self-destruction.”

For those who believe that Faretta was correctly decided, however, a different answer is possible. That answer has to do with an individual’s interest in autonomy. As the majority in Faretta pointed out ominously, “[i]n the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber,” an institution that operated in the late 16 th and early 17 th centuries and that “has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights.”

To be sure, most instances of autonomy to harm oneself in the context of a criminal proceeding do not find expression in constitutional rights. And even in Faretta , the majority acknowledged that, as the Supreme Court held in Singer v. United States , “[t]he ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite.”

An arrested suspect has an autonomy interest in confessing her crimes to the police and may waive the Miranda right to remain silent in custody, but that interest in confessing to the police is not protected by a constitutional right. The suspect may waive her right to remain silent, and a knowing and voluntary waiver will stand as a bar against her subsequent claims of constitutional right, but there is no right to confess. If police refuse to listen to her confession, she is simply out of luck (at least along this rather narrow autonomy dimension) and cannot later be heard to complain in court that her rights were violated.

So what makes the right to self-representation different, if it is different? Many criminal defendants do not have the benefit of representation by their first choice of attorney. If they are poor (or simply lack the means to hire the particular person they want), then then they will have to “settle” for someone with whom they might not see eye to eye and who does not appear to the defendants to authentically speak on their behalf.

When this happens, defendants may feel a sense of alienation in the courtroom, being unable to speak for themselves while simultaneously having the person designated to speak for them not doing so to their satisfaction. When a defendant is so dissatisfied as to prefer to speak for herself than to be represented by the person assigned (or available) to speak for her, then insisting that she nonetheless endure the undesired representation is tantamount to silencing her at her own criminal proceeding. In the language of the Faretta Court, “although he may conduct his own defense ultimately to his own detriment, his choice must be honored out of ‘that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.’”

My earlier reference to silencing the defendant is no accident, because the defendant enjoys another right the exercise of which can prove (at least some of the time) to be very damaging to her case: the right to testify on her own behalf. In Rock v. Arkansas , the Supreme Court held that, as a matter of Due Process, Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process, and a necessary corollary to the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, a criminal defendant has the right to testify on her own behalf. If the defendant wishes to take the witness stand, even against the firm advice of her attorney, she is entitled to do so.

It may be clear in some cases that the defendant can only hurt herself by testifying (because prior convictions will make a horrible impression on the jury, or because she is a terrible witness who will wilt under cross-examination). Yet she may nonetheless insist on taking the stand and speaking to the jury about what happened.

The Faretta right takes this logic one step further. As a matter of autonomy, a person who stands accused of a crime is entitled to be heard. One way in which she may be heard is by testifying, if she so chooses, and she may do so no matter how dire the likely consequences. Another way in which a defendant may be heard is by presenting her case in court. Indeed, when courts and attorneys refer to arguments made by a lawyer during trial, they usually say that “the defendant/appellant/petitioner” made an argument instead of saying that “the lawyer” made an argument. This is because the lawyer, in an important sense, merges with her client, and what the lawyer says or decides is generally binding on the client.

Accordingly, if the client is uncomfortable with the representation and agency of her attorney and would prefer to go without representation—and represent herself—rather than continue with that attorney, a deep respect for the right to speak and respond to criminal charges demands that we accede to that request, however foolhardy. And as the majority observed in Faretta , “it is not inconceivable that in some rare instances, the defendant might in fact present his case more effectively by conducting his own defense. Personal liberties are not rooted in the law of averages.”

One way of thinking about the autonomy right here is to analogize it to the right to refuse medical treatment. Doctors might deem a medical treatment to be beneficial, and society might consider the right to receive that treatment, if it is desired, to be of paramount importance. Yet the person who chooses not to receive the treatment, if he is competent to understand the choice that he is making, is entitled to make that choice. This is true no matter how “foolish” the election, when viewed exclusively through a cost/benefit lens. In some cases, of course, the patient may turn out to have been wiser than his doctors.

Regardless of its wisdom, the purest expression of autonomy may be manifest precisely when its exercise defies a cost/benefit analysis. If so, then—like the right to refuse life-saving treatment—the right to speak on one’s own behalf, whether as a witness or as one’s own counsel, may rightfully belong with the individual whose life or liberty is actually at stake, and that individual is the criminal defendant herself.

Posted in: Constitutional Law , Criminal Procedure

Tags: Legal

One response to “Examining the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation”

As a defendant who has clashed w/ his appointed counsel on trial strategy, I know what it’s like to wince and cringe as your lawyer says things on your behalf that you disagree with. It got to the point that I wanted to take the stand so I could finally explain the whole thing to the jury. My lawyer says to me “OK do you want to have your day in court or do you want a verdict of not guilty?” Taking the stand would’ve probably been a mistake. But if I’d acted as my own lawyer from start to finish and made the arguments I wanted to make, then I think the jury would’ve reached the same verdict as they did (not guilty). I also know what its like to be overwhelmed and intimidated enough to want to take the prosecutions deferred sentence deal and to have my appointed counsel say “ah c’mon, let’s go to trial we can win this.” and then to be awed by my lawyer’s cerebral discussion of the then recent “Crawford v. Washington’ SCOTUS decision and the intellectual back&forth that went on between my lawyer, the professorial judge and (to a lesser extent, the trainee prosecutor). A lawyer’s knowledge and skill is of great value to a defendant. A lawyer’s arrogance can also leave his client feeling as though he is unrepresented.

by Sherry F. Colb

Should you sign a right-to-represent agreement with a recruiter?

Four things job seekers should consider before inking a deal with a recruiter.

Share story

A recruiter contacts you from out of the blue with a new contracting opportunity. You get excited about the role, but before it can go any further, the recruiter asks you to sign a right-to-represent document.

What should you know about this document before you sign it? Essentially, this agreement gives the recruiting agency exclusive rights to represent you as a job candidate. Used mostly for contract positions, these agreements can protect everyone involved.

But like any contract, it’s important for candidates to closely read the agreement before signing. Here are four things to consider when presented with a right-to-represent.

1. How long does it last? These agreements are usually written to apply to one specific position, but some recruiters ask candidates to sign a broad right-to-represent. This gives the recruiter exclusive rights to submit a candidate’s résumé for any open position they see fit. Kristen Fife, a senior technical recruiter for Zulily, warns against signing a blanket right-to-represent, saying it can limit your job search.

“Once you sign that right-to-represent, you are agreeing to not have another agency submit you,” Fife says. “You could be locking yourself out of working for a better agency.”

Read the fine print and make sure the right-to-represent is for one single, specific job, Fife says. It should include the job number and description.

Kristofer Moore, a Redmond software developer who has been working with recruiters for over a decade, refuses to sign a blanket right-to-represent contract giving exclusivity to a single agency.

“There are too many offers and too many companies to be tied down to just one company representing you for every position,” Moore says.

2. Do I like this agency? “Make sure the agency you sign the right-to-represent with is who you want to work for,” Fife says, “because they are going to become your employer for the duration of the contract.”

Some agencies may pay more, offer benefits or have a better reputation, so it’s important to be savvy and do your homework, says Fife.

The recruiter’s availability is also important to consider, Moore says.

“If their mailbox is full, you probably don’t want them to represent you, because that means they haven’t responded in a present manner,” Moore says. “And little things, like them spelling your name correctly, are a big indicator of their attention to detail and how much they value you.”

3. What happens if I sign multiple right-to-represent agreements? While there’s nothing wrong with working with a variety of recruiting agencies when looking for work, signing multiple right to-represents for the same position can have huge ramifications for a job search.

“A lot of employers, like Amazon or T-Mobile, if you are submitted by two agencies for the same job, you are unconsidered for that position — and potentially other positions — for a significant amount of time,” Fife says.

Large companies, working with multiple recruiting agencies, often require recruiters to obtain right-to-represent agreements so they don’t receive a résumé from the same candidate for one position from multiple recruiters. These agreements also provide a clear date stamp, to determine which recruiter a candidate gave permission to first.

“If someone is submitted by more than one vendor for a job, the client doesn’t want to deal with the fight,” says Tyra Tally, a recruiter for Mercer Island-based technology recruiting company Hansell Tierney. “They don’t want to have to pick who should get to represent this person.”

Tally suggests candidates use a spreadsheet to track which jobs candidates have been submitted for to prevent multiple submissions.

4. Why sign a right-to-represent? Tally describes these agreements as a safety measure; “to make sure vendors are actually talking to candidates before they are being submitted [for a job].”

Signing a right-to-represent is an individual decision, Fife says, but often without one, a job candidate might not get a chance to interview or even apply for the position.

“If the job is good and the pay is good,” Fife says, “and they aren’t going to submit you unless you sign the right-to-represent — yeah, sign it.”

Fife adds, “Just make sure you have done your due diligence and you know what the right-to-represent means.”

The Right to Legal Representation in America

The right to legal representation is a fundamental constitutional right in the American legal system. The American justice system is adversarial. For this system of justice to gain legitimacy, it must promote equal and adequate representation of all parties throughout the judicial process. However, this seems to be more of the case in theory than in practice.

For many years, the American justice system had failed to live up to its legitimacy. For many years, legal representation was a preserve for those had the financial muscle and wielded political influence. According to Banks and O’Brien (2008), it was only in a few criminal cases were defendants is allowed representation. However, this was only if the accused persons had the economic power to buy such representations. Almost no civil case had legal representation.

However, the decision in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) changed the narrative and heightened the right to an attorney for those charged with various crimes. It is in this light that this blog post focuses on the contributions of this case to the American criminal justice jurisprudence. We also investigate why America has failed in drafting a system of justice that adequately caters for the impecunious defendants.

Table of Contents

The Right to Attorney in Criminal Cases

The right to legal counsel of a criminal defendant is provided for under the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution. It is a requirement under the said provision that the accused persons be provided with counsel in all criminal prosecutions.

The provision lays it bear that this is an inherent right and is not dependent on the accused person’s economic or financial status. That implies that a criminal defendant is entitled to an attorney in all criminal trials whether they can afford the legal fees or otherwise.

Therefore, in the event the accused person is not able to meet the cost of the legal fees, the state will assume the costs and appoint an attorney for such defendants. The right to legal representation should not be read to limit its meaning and operation within the criminal trial in itself. It stretches beyond and applies as well to the point of arrest of the defendant.

Why the Need for an Attorney?

A defense attorney plays a very fundamental role in defending the accused person throughout the criminal process. The defense attorney executes certain specific duties within various stages of the criminal trial, which depends on a number of factors such as the facts and the nature of the case. The following are some of the core tasks performed by the defense attorney:

The defense attorney offers counsel to the accused person about his rights and briefs him about the various stages and likely outcomes throughout the criminal trial. He also acts as the custodian of the rights of the accused person by ensuring that none of them is violated. At certain stages in the trial, the defense attorney will enter plea bargain on behalf of the client.

Overall, the defense counsel acts as a guardian to the rights of the accused and ensures that justice is done for the accused.

Gideon v. Wainwright

This is one of the landmark decisions in the American criminal justice jurisprudence. The case expanded the scope of the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution. The existing position pre-dating Gideon v Wainwright was that the right to legal representation was only limited to serious criminal offenses and not petty crimes or misdemeanors.

The brief facts of the case are as follows. Gideon, the defendant had asked for legal representation during the trial the reason being that he was unable to afford to hire one. His request was however thwarted.  The trial judge defended the refusal to grant the defendant legal representation arguing that the state laws only allowed appointment of an attorney only in capital cases.

The defendant while in custody petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the learned trial judge terming it as a violation of his right under the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court sided with him.

The highest court affirmed that the right to legal representation irrespective of the criminal charges is a necessity not luxury. The Supreme Court’s decision therefore overturned the decision in Betts v Brady and other similar decisions pre-dating Gideon’s case hence allowing a more progressive interpretation of the Sixth Amendment to cover all criminal cases and not just some.

Not There Yet

Despite the decision in Gideon case, adequate legal representation of poor defendants is yet to be achieved. Why? Quite a number of factors come to play. According to Banks and O’Brien (2008), the approximate total expenditure by federal and state government towards ensuring that the poor are adequately represented in courts is $3.3 billion every year.

Nonetheless, this has not been very successful due to the following reasons. From incompetence of the attorneys to insufficient funding as per the budget, poor management of the funds and other aspects such as wastage, huge case backlogs, understaffing etc.

All these factors, independently or combined, hamper attempts to enable the impoverished to access legal representation similar to those who have the ability to hire attorneys.

In conclusion, it is important to note that not all is lost. A lot more need to be done to ensure that justice is equally met both by both the rich and by poor on the same parlance.

2 thoughts on “The Right to Legal Representation in America”

Court appointed attorneys are inept and give zero time to prepare for their clients. Only showing up 5 minutes before trial and calling out their client’s name because they have not bothered to meet the client or prepare for the case.

This could be true. However, the safeguard here did not foresee human behaviour, temperament and weaknesses.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

New Report Illustrates How Right to Counsel Prevents Evictions and their Discriminatory Impacts on Communities

Our country is facing a historic eviction crisis. Amid a nationwide housing shortage , rents are surging to unprecedented levels, and many renters cannot keep pace . In 2021, rents rose by an average of 14 percent, with cities like Austin, Miami, New York, Portland, and Newark facing increases as high as 40 percent. Simultaneously, protections against eviction instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic have largely expired . These factors have left more and more people and families across the country at risk of losing their housing. Exacerbating the issue further, renters facing eviction are almost always unrepresented in court proceedings. Nationwide, only 3 percent of renters are represented, compared to 81 percent of landlords on average. Our new report, “No Eviction Without Representation: Evictions’ Disproportionate Harms and the Promise of Right to Counsel,” illustrates how providing a right to counsel helps keep people in their homes.

Legal representation for renters facing eviction is a critically important intervention to keep people in their homes and prevent the long-term harms of eviction. Our new report assesses the impacts of eviction and how they contribute to a cycle of poverty that frequently results in homelessness and harms communities. For example, when evictions force families out of their homes, they often simultaneously force children to change schools, disrupting their education and health. Evictions can also result in job loss, lead to long-term damage to the physical and mental health of those who are evicted, and severely constrict housing choice and accessibility in the future. An eviction record often disqualifies tenants from federal housing assistance, and many landlords won’t accept tenants with a previous record of eviction, leading to a cycle that results in homelessness.

The report also explores how these harms are disproportionately experienced by Black and Latinx people, especially women and children. Black individuals account for nearly 33 percent of all eviction filing defendants, despite comprising only roughly 20 percent of all adult renters. The number of women evicted is 16 percent higher than the number of men evicted, and Black women face eviction filings at nearly twice the rate of white women. In addition, having children in the household is as likely to contribute to an eviction judgement as falling four months behind in rent .

Finally, the report examines how providing legal representation to renters can significantly mitigate a mass eviction crisis. It looks at research from pilot projects, representation and cost-benefit studies, and existing right to counsel programs to assess the impact of legal representation for renters in eviction proceedings. The results are clear: Legal representation for renters is a well-demonstrated, cost-effective intervention in the eviction crisis.

In New York City, the right to counsel has meant that 84 percent of represented renters facing eviction have remained in their homes. In Cleveland, the right to counsel program has helped 93 percent of represented renters avoid an eviction judgment or an involuntary move, and 83 percent of the program’s clients whose goal was to secure rental assistance were able to do so. And in various studies estimating the costs and benefits of a right to counsel, cities and states have been projected to see significant net savings from the program by reducing the costs associated with eviction. Just one example is a study on the potential cost savings of enacting a right to counsel in Massachusetts, which found that such a program would result in an overall estimated cost savings of $36.73 million annually, providing a return of approximately $2.40 for every one dollar spent on full legal representation in eviction cases. And in a recent analysis of Cleveland’s right to counsel, the estimated net savings to Cleveland and Cuyahoga County were approximately $1.8 to $1.9 million .

To date, 15 cities and three states have enacted a right to counsel for renters in eviction cases. Many more are actively considering adopting a right to legal representation for those facing eviction. The research shows that the right to counsel for renters is a vital strategy to prevent and mitigate the harms of eviction.

Our report concludes by making the following recommendations for federal, state, and local governments:

• Fully fund efforts to establish and implement the right to counsel for renters at the state and local level.
• Increase awareness among localities and states about the portions of Emergency Rental Assistance Program and Fiscal Recovery Fund dollars available for legal services, and work to make these funding sources permanent.
• Enact and implement a right to counsel for renters facing eviction in their jurisdictions.
• Support research and evaluation that assesses longer-term outcomes and identify best practices of right to counsel efforts.

Eviction is a gender justice issue. It is a racial justice issue. It is an economic justice issue. It is a children’s rights issue. And it is a civil liberties issue. The research demonstrates that the right to counsel effectively mitigates and prevents the serious harms of eviction and gives families a fighting chance to stay in their homes and communities. Ensuring a right to counsel for renters in eviction proceedings can play a vital role in helping to address systemic inequity and our nation’s inexcusable failure to invest in affordable housing for all.

Learn More About the Issues on This Page

• Housing Policy and Local Ordinances
• Women's Rights
• Violence Against Women

Related Content

ACLU Comment on U.S. Department of Education’s Final Title IX Rule

Final ‘Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’ Regulations Were Released—And It’s Great News for Women

Supreme Court Delivers Big Win for Workplace Equality in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Ruling

Fourth Circuit Rejects West Virginia Law Barring Transgender Girls From Student Athletics

right of representation

Primary tabs.

1) See per stirpes . 

2) In a political context, right of representation is the right of a citizen to elect members of a legislature to represent them.

3) See right to counsel .

[Last updated in April of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• property & real estate law
• trusts, inheritances & estates
• property law
• wex definitions

Contact Member Lifeline:  (313) 937-5105

Law Enforcement Legal Information for POAM Members Legal Union Representation – Your Weingarten Rights!

By: --> --> November 24, 2009

By: Frank A. Guido, POAM General Counsel

The right to union representation in an employer conducted meeting or interview was established in the landmark decision in NLRB v J. Weingarten, Inc. , 420 US 251 (1975). The Court held that an employee has a statutory right to insist on the presence of a union representative in an interview which the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action. While the Weingarten decision dealt with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)and its application to the private sector, the principle has been adopted and applied to public employee rights under PERA by the Michigan judiciary and MERC. Regents of the University of Michigan v Local 1583 AFSCME , 1977 MERC Lab Op 496; Wayne-Westland Education Association v Wayne-Westland Community Schools , 176 Mich App 361, 439 NW2d 372 (1989).

The right to union representation and assistance during an interview is founded in the employee’s right to act in concert with other employees for mutual aid and protection. Section 9 of PERA, therefore, recognizes the same principle found in section 7 of the NLRA.

The purpose of union representation in an interview is to safeguard the employee’s interest as well as the interest of the entire bargaining unit to insure the employer does not impose punishment unjustly. A knowledgeable union representative can assist the employer by listing favorable facts which an inarticulate or fearful employee may omit. E.I. DuPont DeNemours , 289 NLRB 627 (1988).

There are two threshold requirements that must exist to invoke the Weingarten right: (1) The employee must have a reasonable belief the interview may lead to discipline, and (2) The employee must demand a union representative.

Applying the first requirement, the employer’s statement of intention is controlling. When an employee is called in for a meeting without a union representative, the employee should ask whether it is about anything that could possibly lead to discipline. If the employer responds in the affirmative or responds in a way that allows for the possibility of discipline resulting, the employee should demand a union representative. If the employer responds that there is no possibility that the meeting will result in discipline, then the Weingarten right does not apply since the assurance of the employer negates existence of a reasonable belief that discipline may result.

Under the first requirement, the threatened discipline must be of the employee, not discipline of another employee. There is no Weingarten right when the employer is interviewing an employee about another employee who is subject to possible discipline.

The “reasonable belief” standard which determines the propriety of an employee’s request for union representation, is not applicable to an employer giving of instruction, training, or correction of work technique, Weingarten , 420 US at 257-58; giving of notice of discipline, Baton Rouge , 246 NLRB 995 (1979) [Note: Due process rights at termination, Cleveland Board of Education v Loudermill , 470 US 532 (1985).]

The selection of a particular representative is the right of the employee. The employer may not designate its preference of which union representative can appear. City of Fraser , 1992 MERC Lab Op 279. Where a union representative is not immediately available, the employee does not waive the right to have union representation, City of Fraser , 1993 MERC Lab Op 304; Supervalue Xenia , 236 NLRB 1581 (1978). The employer’s denial of an employee’s representative of choice is not a violation of PERA if the demand is for a representative from a far-away worksite and other representatives are readily available. City of Muskegon , 1994 MERC Lab Op 92.

POAM has been at the forefront of fighting for Weingarten representation rights. For example, in Township of Redford , 1984 MERC Lab Op 1056 an interview was being conducted by the Civil Rights Commission in the presence of the employer with questioning by the employer’s attorney. The employer denied a request for a union representative which was a direct violation of PERA. The violation of PERA occurred despite discipline not issuing to the employee.

In other decisions it has been held that an employee is not entitled to a union representative where meetings were held for the purpose of obtaining written statements and the employee was given several days to prepare responses. No questions were asked to the employee during the meeting, hence a “reasonable belief” was absent. Flat Rock , 1996 MERC Lab Op 455.

Where an employee was subjected to a sergeant’s loud and threatening manner and the sergeant took offense to a question raised by the officer during the meeting, the employee possessed a reasonable belief the sergeant intended to discipline, therefore, the officer was entitled to a representative. Charter Township of Clinton , 1995 MERC Lab Op 415.

An employee has a right to seek union representation upon realizing during the course of an investigation that he is not a mere witness but the target of an investigation, even though the request was not made at the inception of the interview. Penn-Dixie , 253 NLRB 91 (1980). Once an employee makes an initial request for a union representative, it need not be renewed in subsequent interviews. Ball Plastics , 257 NLRB 971 (1981).

The right to union representation also exists where an employer has made only a tentative decision to impose discipline prior to an interview. Ohio Masonic Home , 251 NLRB 606 (1980). The announcement by an employer prior to a meeting of the intention to discharge an employee, which results in further questioning of the employee concerning the incident during the course of a meeting which results in institution of lesser discipline, still entitles the employee to union representation. EPG Industries, Inc. , 251 NLRB 1146 (1980).

A meeting scheduled to inform an employee of discipline would not prohibit entitlement to union representation where, during the course of the meeting, the employer advised of its intent to discuss the conduct, thereby suggesting the employee respond, which invoked a reasonable fear that additional discipline might be imposed upon the attempt of the employee to defend his actions. City of Kalamazoo , 1996 MERC Lab Op 556.

Members are encouraged to assert their Weingarten right due to the valuable protection it affords:

• The union representative can serve as a witness to prevent the giving of a false account of the interview.
• The union representative can object to intimidating or confusing questions.
• The union representative can warn an employee against losing his or her temper.
• The union representative can raise extenuating factors at the conclusion of the interview.

When the right to union representation exists, the next question is what is the role of the union representative.

The Union representative is not allowed to interfere with questioning by answering on behalf of the employee. City of Oak Park , 1995 MERC Lab Op 576. In NLRB v Southwestern Bell Telephone Company , 730 F2d 166 (5th Cir, 1984), it was held that a union representative must be afforded an opportunity to participate in the investigatory interview, however, the meeting is not to be transformed into an adversary contest. An employer may insist that the union representative not answer questions put to the employee, however, the representative is allowed to consult with the employee and is permitted at the end of the interview to make additions, suggestions or clarifications. In addition, the employee cannot be prohibited from consulting with the representative during the interview. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v NLRB , 667 F2d 470 (5th Cir, 1982).

Removal of a union representative from an interview subsequent to advice to an employee to only answer questions once, is not a violation of representation where such rigid limitation converts the interview into a formalized adversarial forum contrary to Weingarten . The representative does have a right to object to questions which may reasonably be construed as harassing. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company , 308 NLRB 277 (1992).

A representative during an interview has a right not only to be present but also to participate. As a result, an employer improperly advised a union representative that he was not allowed to speak but could only write notes and whisper in the employee’s ear. Saginaw Township , 1989 MERC Lab Op 1158. Where an employer advised the union representative that his presence was only a courtesy and that the representative had to remain silent and could not interrupt, but had to sit down or be put out, the employer was deemed to have committed an unfair labor practice. Citing National Labor Relations Board decisions under Weingarten , an ALJ held that preventing a union representative from participating or ordering a representative to remain silent conflicts with the Weingarten rule, which contemplates meaningful representation as the role of the representative is to provide assistance and counsel to employees. City of Detroit Recreation Department , 1990 MERC Lab Op 388.

As a matter of practice, POAM recommends that an employee always demand union representation as many employers will allow representation even in situations where no discipline is contemplated. Where representation is denied under questionable circumstances, POAM will consider filing an unfair labor practice charge. In addition, the union representative and employee should be aware of the implementation of Garrity rights during the interview process and be ready to assert the Garrity protection where appropriate.

Don't Miss a Beat Subscribe To Our Mailing List

• Enter your email address *

MEET THE POAM MOBILE APP Stay Informed With Law Enforcement News

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Make a “Good” Presentation “Great”

• Guy Kawasaki

Remember: Less is more.

A strong presentation is so much more than information pasted onto a series of slides with fancy backgrounds. Whether you’re pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing something else, a great presentation can give you a competitive advantage, and be a powerful tool when aiming to persuade, educate, or inspire others. Here are some unique elements that make a presentation stand out.

• Fonts: Sans Serif fonts such as Helvetica or Arial are preferred for their clean lines, which make them easy to digest at various sizes and distances. Limit the number of font styles to two: one for headings and another for body text, to avoid visual confusion or distractions.
• Colors: Colors can evoke emotions and highlight critical points, but their overuse can lead to a cluttered and confusing presentation. A limited palette of two to three main colors, complemented by a simple background, can help you draw attention to key elements without overwhelming the audience.
• Pictures: Pictures can communicate complex ideas quickly and memorably but choosing the right images is key. Images or pictures should be big (perhaps 20-25% of the page), bold, and have a clear purpose that complements the slide’s text.
• Layout: Don’t overcrowd your slides with too much information. When in doubt, adhere to the principle of simplicity, and aim for a clean and uncluttered layout with plenty of white space around text and images. Think phrases and bullets, not sentences.

As an intern or early career professional, chances are that you’ll be tasked with making or giving a presentation in the near future. Whether you’re pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing something else, a great presentation can give you a competitive advantage, and be a powerful tool when aiming to persuade, educate, or inspire others.

• Guy Kawasaki is the chief evangelist at Canva and was the former chief evangelist at Apple. Guy is the author of 16 books including Think Remarkable : 9 Paths to Transform Your Life and Make a Difference.

Partner Center

• Future Students
• Parents/Families
• Alumni/Friends
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff
• MyOHIO Student Center
• Visit Athens Campus
• Regional Campuses
• OHIO Online
• Faculty/Staff Directory

Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine

• Faculty and Staff Directory
• Mission and Vision
• Our Campuses
• Osteopathic Medicine
• Accreditation
• Code of Ethics
• College Policies and Procedures
• College Leadership
• Shared Governance
• Annual Report
• Our Partners
• Student and Alumni Facts
• Overview (all offices)
• Office of Medical Education
• Alumni Affairs
• Administrative Services
• Advancement and Development
• Communications
• Consortium for Health Education in Appalachia Ohio
• CORE / Clinical Education
• Executive Dean's Office
• External Relations
• Office of Faculty Learning and Advancement
• Financial Services
• Government Relations
• Graduate Medical Education
• Human Resources
• Institutional Assessment and Accreditation
• Office of Medical Education Technology
• Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute
• Research and Grants
• Rural and Underserved Programs
• Strategic Initiatives
• Student Affairs
• Overview (all departments)
• Biomedical Sciences
• Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM)
• Primary Care
• Social Medicine
• Specialty Medicine
• Strategic Plan
• Osteopathic Heritage Foundation Award
• Pathways to Health and Wellness Curriculum
• New Heritage Hall Medical Facilities in Athens
• Dublin Campus Master Plan
• Research Strategic Plan
• Academic Requirements
• Transfer and International Applicants
• Summer Programs
• Premedical Education
• Dual-Degree Programs
• Early Assurance Program
• Biological Sciences
• Molecular and Cellular Biology
• Translational Biomedical Sciences
• Financial Aid Checklist
• Cost of Attendance
• Scholarships
• Student Loans
• Exit Information
• Computer Requirements
• Orientation Checklist
• Student Resource Manual
• College Catalog
• Health and Technical Standards
• Criminal Background Check
• Premedical Overview
• Early Assurance Programs
• Post-Baccalaureate
• Prematriculation
• AmeriCorps/COMcorps
• High School Programs
• Curriculum Overview
• Preclinical Education
• Clinical Education
• Learning Resource Center
• Student Manuals, Policies and Resources
• Clinical Training Assessment Centers
• Osteopathic Integration
• GME Overview
• ACGME Single Accreditation System
• Ohio University Graduate Programs (M.S., Ph.D)
• Continuing Medical Education
• Health Policy Fellowship
• Our Research
• Office of Research and Grants
• Annual Reports and Forms
• Faculty and Staff Resources
• Resident Resources
• Student Resources
• Vice President of Research, Ohio University
• Funding Resources
• LEO Electronic Awards Administration
• Research Compliance
• Edison Biotechnology Institute
• Centers and Institutes
• Clinical and Translational Research Unit (CTRU)
• Life Sciences Research Facility
• Diabetes Institute
• Infectious and Tropical Disease Institute
• Academic and Research Center (ARC)
• Musculoskeletal and Neurological Diseases
• About Our Programs
• Patient Portal
• Adult Health Screenings
• AmeriCorps/COMCorps
• Body Donor Program
• Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings
• Family Navigator Services
• Heritage Community Clinic
• Immunizations
• Privacy Notice
• Continuing Education
• American Heart Association Training Centers
• Health Resources Library
• Premedical Observation
• Schweitzer Fellowship
• T.O.U.C.H. Program
• Society of Alumni and Friends
• How to Give
• Osteopathic Heritage Foundation Gift
• Social Media
• Publications
• For the Media
• Shop the Bobcat Store
• Engage with the Global Health Initiative
• Arrange Visit
• Student Affairs Resource Manual
• Manuals, Policies, and Resources
• Academic Schedule
• Blackboard Login
• Medical Education
• Web E-mail (OHIO Catmail)
• Faculty Resources (Years 1 and 2)
• College Research
• Request Technology Assistance
• Room and Videoconference Scheduling
• Faculty Learning

Helpful Links

Navigate OHIO

Connect With Us

Inclusion scholars bring attention to health equity issues

While progress has been made to improve health equity, more needs to be done on many fronts, from medical education to patient care. That was a key message delivered by the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Inclusion Scholars in a research presentation.

As part of the Inclusion Scholars program for first- and second-year students, participants design a small research project and annually, share their findings. This year’s scholars looked at challenges faced by LGBTQ+ patients in health care settings, the ability of medical students to identify skin diseases and conditions on different skin tones, challenges facing inclusion in medical education, the development of a high school mentorship program and implementation of an affinity group for Black men in medical school.

“The inclusion scholar’s program is so valuable to participating students. The experience provides first and second years with an opportunity to delve deep into research and a literature review on a topic of their choosing relevant to equity in medicine or medical education,” said Tanisha King, chief inclusion officer. “Scholars enhance the knowledge of our faculty, staff and students often inspiring and influencing positive change.”

Increasing inclusivity in medical training materials

That was the goal of second-year student Alyson Johnson.

For her project, Johnson surveyed medical students to see if they could identify skin conditions on various skin tones. Most medical education materials only show skin conditions on lighter skin, but diseases often look different on darker skin.

This, Johnson noted, can lead to misdiagnosis. She used skin cancer as an example. Most dermatologists have little to no experience diagnosing skin cancer on people with darker skin tones, so it’s often discovered at a late stage when it’s harder to treat, making it more likely the patient will die from skin cancer. She told a story about her own mother’s misdiagnosis of a spot on her face that turned out to be basal cell carcinoma.

“The bottom line is there is a lack of diversity in medical education texts and lectures,” she said.

In her IRB approved study, medical students were asked to look at images of dark and light skin with 10 common skin conditions and make a diagnosis. Next, they indicated how confident they were in that diagnosis. Johnson said while students performed well overall, preliminary results showed they also did not have much confidence in their diagnosis of conditions on darker skin.

Johnson said she hopes data from her study can be used to “lead us forward in the right direction.

Improving health outcomes

In her presentation, Inclusion Scholar Caitlin Pastor, a first-year student on the Cleveland campus, said she has witnessed first-hand how a lack of inclusivity and respect can lead to poor treatment of patients. Pastor looked at LGBTQ+ patient care, and shared details about a patient and her mother who left a practice because the provider would not use the patient’s pronouns or new name.

Pastor held a training for clinical staff to raise more awareness about the significance of pronouns and its effect on the patient/provider relationship. She pointed out that a strong relationship between a doctor and their patient will lead to better health outcomes.

“A considerable number of people won’t go to a provider because of concerns about how they’re treated,” said Pastor. She pointed out that on her first day of classes, instructors emphasized the patient/physician relationship and told students to leave their biases at the door.

“All patients deserve your best holistic care,” she said.

Broadening representation to enhance a sense of belonging

Many incoming medical students say they were inspired to pursue a career in medicine by someone they’ve met who works in health care. That was the case with Inclusion Scholar Jacee Moore, OMS I, who was introduced to medicine by her pediatrician, Jacqueline Moore (no relation).

“She served as a constant reminder that I could do anything that I wanted to do at a young age,” said Moore. “And seeing her being a black woman in medicine, seeing her name on a plaque that said Dr. J. Moore…I wouldn’t be future Dr. Moore if there wasn’t a Dr. Moore already.”

For her project, Moore conducted a survey of medical students to better understand their motivations for pursuing a career in medicine and the barriers they have faced along the way.

During her presentation, Moore made the point that some people may not ever meet a physician who looks like them or shares their background or culture.

“Luckily for me I was able to have that exposure, earlier, before my career even started, but I know for some people that’s not the case,” she said.

When students who are underrepresented in medicine (URM) attend medical school, they often have a low sense of belonging or don’t feel they belong at all. This was one of Moore’s findings. Many students also reported facing barriers, such as a lack of mentorship (12%), instances of bias or discrimination (12%), overall lack of diversity (26%) and financial hardship (28%) in medical school. However, a large number of the survey’s overall respondents felt a strong interest in academic medicine and a desire to lead the next generation of providers and train them to be culturally competent physicians.

In her presentation, Moore said it was important to get in front of young people from URM groups and let them know that a career in medicine is possible. To improve inclusion efforts, she recommended several other steps including hiring and retaining more diverse faculty.

“This call to action is one that is near my heart being a student of an underrepresented minority group in medical school,” said Moore. “By increasing diversity and inclusion within medical education, I believe we are one step closer to providing a community of doctors who look like the patient populations we intend to serve, and we take a great step closer towards equitable, culturally competent patient centered care that our patients deserve.”

Building pipelines that help medical school recruitment

Inclusion Scholar Alcario Williams’ idea of creating a pipeline program for URM students from high schools and community colleges blossomed as he thought about where he was raised and his journey to medical school.

“I believe increasing diversity in medicine helps address these health care disparities by tailoring care to different populations,” said Williams. “So more representation leads to more physicians who understand and are aware of these varied patient experiences that these patients come in with, and these doctors can serve in these diverse communities which I believe leads to better health outcomes.”

Through the pipeline program, prospective students would partner with mentors who can guide them on their journey to medical school, from preparing for the MCAT to offering shadowing opportunities.

“We want to help these students who qualify for medical school but may be disadvantaged economically and/or socially find their path into medicine,” said Williams.

He explained how he faced what’s called academic redlining, where academic metrics can keep qualified applicants from underrepresented backgrounds from entering medical school. Redlining is a historical practice that isolates neighborhoods often based on race or ethnicity and then denies economic opportunities and other services to that community.  Academic redlining is an extension of this concept as students in these communities often attend schools with significantly less funding and resources than schools in wealthier districts. Students in these neighborhoods usually face other barriers, such as inadequate housing, difficulty accessing health care and food deserts, which can affect their education.

The Heritage College currently offers several programs that help reduce barriers to medical school, including Medical Student for a Day, a program where university students get exposure to a day in the life of a medical student. Williams said he participated in that program three times.

“Each time I learned something new from it, but I also saw the representation, and I gained that confidence over time that I can really do this,” he said.

Other programs the college offers include Summer Scholars and Pre-Matriculation, which Williams calls, “so impactful, so powerful, so influential,” and says he owes his success in medical school to them. Summer Scholars is a rigorous five-week immersive program that gives participants a realistic introduction to the first year of medical school. The Pre-matriculation program is an accelerated introduction to medical school.

Williams sees his pipeline program integrating with these. He said he wants to bridge the gap between underrepresented students and patients.

“If I can help more students who look like me get into medical school… that’s what I’m doing it for,” said Williams who hopes he can be the same kind of doctor as the pediatrician who cared for him when he was a child.

Finding space to gather and connect

After seeing data showing that less than half of Black male applicants accepted to the Heritage College chose to attend, Inclusion Scholar Kendale Watson developed an affinity group for Black men at the college.

He spoke with applicants to better understand what was happening. They told him they didn’t see Black men on campus, that they only saw him.

Watson said, he felt his affinity group, the Medicine Equity and Diversity or M.E.D. program, would be a good way to bring Black men to the forefront so that incoming students could see them, not just hear about them.

Watson started M.E.D. to create a healthy social environment and safe space for Black men across all three campuses at the college to gather and connect with each other, and to help increase the number of Black male applicants and graduates at the college.

The program ran four weeks and included a weekly seminar with guest speakers, many of them alumni. It also provided fellowship for the group’s 17 participants.

“We were able to see each other in person for the first time as one group,” said Watson, adding that one alumnus who spoke to the group told members that it was the most Black men he had ever seen together at one time at the college.

By bringing in alumni, Watson hoped they would provide mentorship and knowledge and could share their medical school experiences.

“I believe that by fostering a sense of community and mentorship, we can enhance the experience on campus and contribute to long-term success for Black men at OUHCOM.”

To evaluate the group’s effectiveness, Watson conducted a pre- and post-survey. He found that the group was diverse with a handful having a physician in their family and less than half being first generation college students. He also discovered that two-thirds of students  had a mentor, although for many of them, their mentor was not in their chosen specialty.

While most participants said they feel supported by the college, they said there are challenges. More diversity among the faculty, a larger number of Black male students and having networks of support were some of the recommendations participants gave for improving their medical school experience.

The students also reported feeling pressure to succeed as a Black male in medicine.

“It was an overwhelmingly yes from everyone,” said Watson. One participant said he felt he had to prove people wrong because they had been surprised he was going to be a doctor. Another said being the first in college and the first in medicine was both a drive and burden.

“I can relate to this personally… It’s a lot of pressure to go through this experience without having anyone who came before you,” said Watson. “You’re the first. So, navigating this experience can be very difficult.”

Watson also asked participants what they hoped to accomplish as a Black physician. One said he hoped to improve health outcomes in his community, remove stigma in health care, have a positive impact and become a trusted role model and leader in his community.

“I feel like that was the overwhelming response as well during the program, that everyone wants to be that pivotal role model for their community because there’s not a lot of people who look like us in this field, and it gives us a little bit of grit to keep continuing even if we do have setbacks,” said Watson.

Inclusion scholars are paired with either a faculty mentor or an assistant director of inclusion. They receive a stipend and are considered ambassadors for the Office of Inclusion, helping to facilitate dialogue on inclusion topics among their peers.

“What we’ve seen with the Inclusion Scholars program is that it increases student empathy as well as understanding of diversity, equity and inclusion and how broad it is,” said King. “This year’s scholars developed a strong bond and collaborated more with each other than we’ve seen in prior years.”

Information about how to apply can be found online .

Related Articles

Featured news, class of 2024 graduate profile: kamara hyatt.

Class of 2024 graduate Kamara Hyatt is headed to a family medicine residency at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. In this profile, Hyatt, who was raised in South Florida, explains how her mom has inspired her journey through medical school. 

Heritage College Class of 2024 Graduate Profile: Ashleigh Chiedo

Born to immigrants and with a background in health care, graduate Ashleigh Chiedo took on a leadership role in medical school that led her to create Public Day of Service,  an event which has been adopted by many colleges of osteopathic medicine across the country. In this profile, she shares what led her to medical school and where she's headed next.

Class of 2024 Graduate Profile: Charlie Spieser

Charlie Spieser became interested in medicine after shadowing a D.O. in the eighth grade. Learn more about his medical school experience in this profile as we celebrate the Class of 2024 by talking with some of our graduates about their time at the college and where they are headed after graduation. 

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

What the New Overtime Rule Means for Workers

One of the basic principles of the American workplace is that a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. Simply put, every worker’s time has value. A cornerstone of that promise is the  Fair Labor Standards Act ’s (FLSA) requirement that when most workers work more than 40 hours in a week, they get paid more. The  Department of Labor ’s new overtime regulation is restoring and extending this promise for millions more lower-paid salaried workers in the U.S.

Overtime protections have been a critical part of the FLSA since 1938 and were established to protect workers from exploitation and to benefit workers, their families and our communities. Strong overtime protections help build America’s middle class and ensure that workers are not overworked and underpaid.

Some workers are specifically exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime protections, including bona fide executive, administrative or professional employees. This exemption, typically referred to as the “EAP” exemption, applies when: 

1. An employee is paid a salary,  

2. The salary is not less than a minimum salary threshold amount, and 

3. The employee primarily performs executive, administrative or professional duties.

While the department increased the minimum salary required for the EAP exemption from overtime pay every 5 to 9 years between 1938 and 1975, long periods between increases to the salary requirement after 1975 have caused an erosion of the real value of the salary threshold, lessening its effectiveness in helping to identify exempt EAP employees.

The department’s new overtime rule was developed based on almost 30 listening sessions across the country and the final rule was issued after reviewing over 33,000 written comments. We heard from a wide variety of members of the public who shared valuable insights to help us develop this Administration’s overtime rule, including from workers who told us: “I would love the opportunity to...be compensated for time worked beyond 40 hours, or alternately be given a raise,” and “I make around $40,000 a year and most week[s] work well over 40 hours (likely in the 45-50 range). This rule change would benefit me greatly and ensure that my time is paid for!” and “Please, I would love to be paid for the extra hours I work!”

The department’s final rule, which will go into effect on July 1, 2024, will increase the standard salary level that helps define and delimit which salaried workers are entitled to overtime pay protections under the FLSA. 

Starting July 1, most salaried workers who earn less than $844 per week will become eligible for overtime pay under the final rule. And on Jan. 1, 2025, most salaried workers who make less than $1,128 per week will become eligible for overtime pay. As these changes occur, job duties will continue to determine overtime exemption status for most salaried employees.

The rule will also increase the total annual compensation requirement for highly compensated employees (who are not entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA if certain requirements are met) from $107,432 per year to $132,964 per year on July 1, 2024, and then set it equal to $151,164 per year on Jan. 1, 2025.

Starting July 1, 2027, these earnings thresholds will be updated every three years so they keep pace with changes in worker salaries, ensuring that employers can adapt more easily because they’ll know when salary updates will happen and how they’ll be calculated.

The final rule will restore and extend the right to overtime pay to many salaried workers, including workers who historically were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA because of their lower pay or the type of work they performed. 

We urge workers and employers to visit  our website to learn more about the final rule.

Jessica Looman is the administrator for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. Follow the Wage and Hour Division on Twitter at  @WHD_DOL  and  LinkedIn .  Editor's note: This blog was edited to correct a typo (changing "administrator" to "administrative.")

• Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
• Fair Labor Standards Act
• overtime rule

SHARE THIS:   

Presentation: AAPI representation in the media

The Asian Student Organization will present on AAPI representation in a media. Stick around for a movie afterward. This event is part of Diversity Week.

3243 9th Avenue Rock Island , IL 61201 United States

Free; not required

Share your news!

Submit an event

Submit an announcement

Submit to the Community Bulletin

Submit a picture of the day

UTA Signs Will.I.Am (EXCLUSIVE)

By Thania Garcia

Thania Garcia

• Britney Spears and Her Father Settle Dispute Over Alleged Financial Misconduct During Conservatorship 16 hours ago
• Karol G and Feid Dominate at the 2024 Latin American Music Awards (Complete Winners List) 1 day ago
• Music Industry Moves: Benny Blanco to Be Honored With President’s Award at 2024 BMI Pop Awards 2 days ago

UTA has signed music and tech mogul Will.i.am for worldwide representation in all areas.

After crafting hits as multi-platinum artist and member of the Black Eyed Peas (who are represented by CAA), Will.i.am has also emerged over the past decade as an influential tech entrepreneur. He is a founding equity stakeholder in Beats by Dre, the headphone company that was purchased by Apple in 2014 for $3 billion.

Popular on Variety

His expertise has also extended into publishing, where he is the author of two books: the graphic novel “Masters of the Sun – The Zombie Chronicles” for Marvel and the young adult novel “Wizards and Robots” under Penguin Publishing, co-written with Brian David Johnson.

Will.i.am continues to be represented by the law firm of Herz Lichtenstein & Young LLP and business management firm Nigro Karlin Segal Feldstein & Bolno.

More From Our Brands

Meet the mvp of ‘shōgun’ — ex-punk rocker and japanese movie star tadanobu asano, inside a $3.3 million one-bedroom condo in l.a.’s famed sierra towers, vince mcmahon lists final tko shares for sale, be tough on dirt but gentle on your body with the best soaps for sensitive skin, tracker’s justin hartley teases what comes next after post-super bowl debut: can colter’s mom be trusted, verify it's you, please log in.

site categories

Omar sy, louis leterrier & thomas benski’s carrousel studios taps cécile gaget for ceo.

• ‘Bridgerton’ Star Charithra Chandran Calls Out Entertainment Industry Mentality That Pits People Of Color Against Each Other

By Hannah Abraham

Hannah Abraham

More stories by hannah.

• ‘A Hundred Lies:’ Canadian Music Drama Set For Limited Theatrical Release In LA & Toronto Before Hitting Apple TV+, First Look Revealed
• Analysis: Bollywood’s Relationship With Narendra Modi’s BJP Under The Microscope As Elections In World’s Largest Democracy Get Underway

EXCLUSIVE: Charithra Chandran , who broke out playing Edwina Sharma in Netflix’s smash regal series Bridgerton , has spoken out against an entertainment industry mentality that she feels pits people of color against each other.

Chandran, who was speaking to Deadline in the days before her debut West End play wraps, said she has “never pictured myself as a role model” but “a lot of young girls follow me on social media, so I do feel a sense of responsibility.”

Related Stories

Asian & Pacific Islander Actors Remain Underrepresented In U.S.-Produced Content, Study Finds

Adobe Brings $6M Diversity Film & TV Fund To UK Via ScreenSkills Partnership

To Chandran, this mentality is intentionally propagated by industry gatekeepers to pit people of color against each other. “It’s not a zero-sum game,” she said. “You’re so focused on fighting your own that you become distracted from the people doing the oppressing. The oppressors have imposed the idea that there’s only one seat at the table, when what other people of color are doing is just pulling up more chairs.”

Since achieving stardom, Chandran has chosen to speak out numerous times about colorism and the importance of diversity . “I think that is the burden of representation, right?,” she added. “It’s so scarce that you’re expected to represent everybody in your community as opposed to just being an individual. The goal is that representation is so nuanced and so consistent that no one individual portrayal has that burden, but while I have it, it’s a really important responsibility that I take seriously.”

Chandran first appeared on screens in Prime Video spy series Alex Rider and truly established herself in Shonda Rhimes’ Bridgerton, playing the younger sister of Simone Ashley’s Kate Sharma. This year is shaping up to be quite the year for the 27-year-old actress, who was born in Scotland to Tamil Indian parents. As she catches up with Deadline, she is heading to shoot an undisclosed movie the following day, is in pre-production for her associate producing debut, Song of the Sun God , a TV series she will also star in, and is wrapping  Instructions for a Teenage Armageddon in the West End.

“Introducing a new generation”

Contrary to the Polaroids and doodles on the promotional poster and a pastel pink bedroom set, the one-woman  Instructions for a Teenage Armageddon  is a frank story of grief centering around Chandran’s witty teen character, whose sister was killed in a darkly comic accident involving a Yorkshire pudding. The play is based on author Rosie Day’s one-woman show of the same name, and has partnered with teen mental health charity stem4, for which Day is an ambassador. 

Tickets for the play – which ends Sunday – started at £15 ($18.80), an unusually cheap price tag for the West End, and Chandran reveals this was an intentional decision from the producers to attract more diverse audiences. “The average theater viewer in this country is probably old, white and upper middle class, and we wanted to divert that to introduce a new generation to the value of the theater.”

This month also saw the premiere of Chandran’s first ever movie role, Prime Video’s How to Date Billy Walsh , in which she stars opposite Tanner Buchanan and Heartstopper star Sebastian Croft. For Chandran, her first time in a lead role was a crucial moment in her career. “I learned so much from that film about the leadership aspect of being on the top of the call sheet, and it will always be so dear to me because it was my first ever film,” she said excitedly. “I think as I get older there are fewer and fewer opportunities where I get to play and do a film like that [in which she plays a teenager].” During promotions, Chandran posted on Instagram that she and Croft had unknowingly shared the stage as children in a production of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang , a moment she described as “mad, mad synchronicity”. 

Chandran seems partial to the word “synchronicity,” using it again when describing how she boarded the TV adaptation of Shankari Chandran’s Song of the Sun God , a TV series made by who else but Synchronicity Films, which will be her first project as associate producer. Her association with the show – which is set against the backdrop of the Sri Lankan civil war –  began with a Teen Vogue interview where she mentioned her dream project would be “something about the crisis in Sri Lanka with the Tamil population”. The interview was read by the daughter of Olivia Hetreed, who was writing the series at the time, and the two quickly got in touch.

“We realized that we were so aligned on what we wanted this project to be,” said Chandran, who is Tamilian herself. “Even the fact that Shankari and I share the same surname, it was meant to be.”

Must Read Stories

Cbs cancels drama series after 3 seasons; stars, creators react.

Zendaya’s ‘Challengers’ Looks To Hit $15 Million In Its Opening Set

‘guardians 3’ is no. 9 in deadline’s most valuable blockbuster tourney, iatse’s michael miller on what it will take for new 3-year labor deal.

Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy.

Read More About:

14 comments.

Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.