Mozart, String Quintets in C Major & G Minor (1788)

1. Mozart, String Quintets in C Major & G Minor (1788) Recording: Franz Beyer & the Melos Quartet (1987) Hold Assignment II until the Break

2. DQ64: Who is Ordinary Reader? Some Commentators: Ordinary Reader of Protected Category in Question • How Show Fact-Finder?

3. DQ64: Who is Ordinary Reader? Some Commentators: Ordinary Reader of Protected Category in Question • How Show Fact-Finder? • Expert Testimony • Members of Group • Focus on Stereotypes/Cultural Symbols

4. DQ64: Who is Ordinary Reader? Some Commentators: Ordinary Reader of Protected Category in Question • Statutory & Policy Arguments (Pro and Con): ALPS

5. DQ64: Who is Ordinary Reader? Some Commentators: Ordinary Reader of Protected Category in Question • Note: Courts have split

6. DQ64: Who is Ordinary Reader? Should definition vary with publication in which ad appears: • Ordinary NY Times Reader? • Ordinary NY Post Reader?

7. ANNOUNCEMENTS • ASSIGNMENT II: SUBMIT AT BREAK • ASSIGNMENT III • Pick up ad at break • Qs?

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS • ASSIGNMENT II: SUBMIT AT BREAK • ASSIGNMENT III • UNIT IV ONLINE • Not Doing Standing • Definitional Qs • Statutory Drafting • In-Class Group Exercise on Thurs 10/12 • Review Substantive Material for Midterm • Techniques for Assignment IV & Final Exam

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS • ASSIGNMENT II: SUBMIT AT BREAK • ASSIGNMENT III • UNIT IV ONLINE • INFO MEMO #3 • Assmt I Comments & Models • Old Exam Qs Covering Unit IV Material • Groups for 10/12 Drafting Exercise

10. ANNOUNCEMENTS • ASSIGNMENT II: SUBMIT AT BREAK • ASSIGNMENT III • UNIT IV ONLINE • INFO MEMO #3 • FORM FOR SCHEDULING MAKE-UP CLASS

11. Mt. Aconagua, Argentina

12. DQ65: ANDES Most/Least Problematic: a)“ Divorced white professional female seeks roommate” b) “ Spanish speaker preferred” c) “ Perfect for Singles or Couple” d) “ Walking distance to shopping” e) “ Convenient to Knights of Columbus”

13. DQ66: Human Models • Every court that has addressed issue has held use of human models can violate 3604(c). • Not particularly controversial today

14. DQ66: Human Models • Courts hold use of human models can violate 3604(c) • Statutory Arguments in Support • No language to contrary • Models can “indicate a preference” • Non-Binding HUD Reg (24 CFR §109)

15. DQ66: Human Models • Courts hold use of human models can violate 3604(c) • Policy Arguments in Support • If discouraging applicants, should ban • Pictures can be stronger than words • Completely within control of advertiser.

16. DQ66: Human Models • Courts hold use of human models can violate 3604(c) • Policy Arguments in Support • If discouraging applicants, should ban • Pictures can be stronger than words • Completely within control of advertiser. • Best Counterarguments?

17. DQ66: Human Models (Andes) • Cases all involve race or familial status • Possibility of human model claim based in “Handicap”? • What might you do with a multi-photo ad campaign to avoid claim of dispreference based on “handicap”?

18. DQ66: Human Models (Andes) • Cases all involve race or familial status • Possibility of human model claim based in “Handicap”? • What might you do with a multi-photo ad campaign to avoid claim of dispreference based on “handicap”? • Should human models caselaw be extended to include “handicap”?

19. DQ67: Evidence in Saunders • 68-photo brochure; virtually no Afr-Am models (face of ads + common sense) • Expert testimony re effects of racial composition of ads • Testimony re reaction by members of group • Evid. of Ds intent: notes re draft of brochure • Note Q’ing where “best places for blacks” would be • Note re use of models in picture of swimming pool • “shd we use blacks in this area?” • “Yes (not in water per J.H.”)

20. DQ67: Saunders (Andes) Suppose D argues: We should be allowed to manipulate race (etc.) to make most of our target audience comfortable, so long as we’re not sending exclusionary messages. OK under statute?

21. DQ67: Saunders Remedy:Possible Arguments by Plaintiff • Re Injunction: • fraud • only put in Afr-Am models right before trial • underlying violation • general reluctance to comply

22. DQ67: Saunders Remedy:Possible Arguments by Plaintiff • Re Injunction: • fraud • only put in Afr-Am models right before trial • underlying violation • general reluctance to comply • Re Proportional Representation: • Given history of resistence, fair remedy • Only way to guarantee won’t be manipulated

23. DQ67: Saunders Remedy Note that even with fairly unsympathetic large repeat offender, court is reluctant to impose very strong remedy.

24. SPRING DQ 68-69-70 Canepa, Bernard Frazer, Amanda Hager, Lauren Kim, Michael Potu, Swetha Zarin, Gregory LEFT FRONT FALL: DQ 68-69-70 James, Robert Lomax, Chris Meisels, Esther Moskowitz, Oren Ohayon, Corey LEFT REAR SUMMER: DQ 69-70-68 Harrison, Stacy Mroczek, Ashley Nuzum, Robert Oppenheimer, Daniel Tankha, Neena Wolgin, Michael RIGHT FRONT WINTER: DQ 70-68-69 Drude, Rachel McGinn, Shannon Muller, Erika Steinman, Rebecca Townsend, Henry RIGHT REAR DISCUSSION GROUPS

25. DQ68. Saunders holds discriminatory adverti-sing doesn’t violate §1982. Assume Ps appeal that decision. Arguments for each side based on statutory language & what you know of Congress’s intent? In fn1, court says this statutory question is essentially irrelevant to the result in Saunders anyway. Can you think of a situation where it might matter?

26. DQ69. Developer advertising new houses (“Fungible Estates”) built on the edge of a major city, runs ads on billboards which say:We At The New Fungible Estates Development (Located at 17000 175th Ave) Believe That The Fair Housing Act is a Violation of Your Consti-tutional Rights to Property and Association.Does this violate the FHA?- Start w Ordinary Reader Test- Discuss Facts/Context That Might Matter

27. DQ70. How do the Wisconsin and Miami Beach provisions on advertising differ from §3604(c)? • Create a list of differences for each. • Try to identify situations where the differences in language would yield different results?

28. SPRING DQ 68-69-70 Canepa, Bernard Frazer, Amanda Hager, Lauren Kim, Michael Potu, Swetha Zarin, Gregory LEFT FRONT FALL: DQ 68-69-70 James, Robert Lomax, Chris Meisels, Esther Moskowitz, Oren Ohayon, Corey LEFT REAR SUMMER: DQ 69-70-68 Harrison, Stacy Mroczek, Ashley Nuzum, Robert Oppenheimer, Daniel Tankha, Neena Wolgin, Michael RIGHT FRONT WINTER: DQ 70-68-69 Drude, Rachel McGinn, Shannon Muller, Erika Steinman, Rebecca Townsend, Henry RIGHT REAR DISCUSSION GROUPS