Nail Salon Workers Say Proper Ventilation Can Protect Their Reproductive Healthg

Nail Salon Workers Say Proper Ventilation Can Protect Their Reproductive Health

BY AMIR KHAFAGY DOCUMENTED NY

When 38-year-old nail salon worker Pabitra Dash recalls the physical pain she felt the first time she miscarried, she says that the emotional and mental anguish she felt hurt much more. “After the miscarriage, no one comes back to support and give a good aura,” she said. The joy she felt the second time she got pregnant was quickly squashed when she began to feel familiar abdominal pain. “I knew it was going to be a miscarriage again,” Dash said. Throughout her brief third pregnancy, Dash was consumed by anxiety. Since moving with her husband to New York from Nepal, they wanted to start a family. The thought of miscarrying again was too much to bear. Dash’s fears rang true when yet again she had to rush to the hospital in pain. In total, Dash suffered seven miscarriages in the span of eight years. The miscarriages coincided with her time as a nail technician, which she quit in 2018. Initially, she was reluctant to talk openly about her miscarriages to others in the Nepali community. Nepali women who did know would shun her, afraid that her bad luck would rub off and cause them to miscarry as well. Still, she began to hear similar stories from her coworkers at the nail salon. As it turns out the chemicals that were in nail polishes, glues, and other chemicals that they were exposed to at the nail salon daily, may have caused miscarriages and other reproductive health issues according to advocates. “I started to talk with other friends who had similar issues,” she said. “Some of them had no children too. From that, I learned it was related to our work.” Last week, six years after it was first announced, New York State implemented long-awaited ventilation regulations in nail salons. The new regulations require nail salon owners to protect workers and clients by providing proper ventilation to filter out toxic particles and fumes. The roughly 7,000 nail salons across the state will be required to install a mechanical ventilation system or risk losing their license to operate. The regulations come as workers, supporters, and a growing number of experts have sounded the alarm about the reproductive

Editorial credit: Connie Guanziroli / Shutterstock.com health hazards women nail salon workers are exposed to daily. “All these chemical smells make you depressed,” she said. “When I go outside I feel so relaxed but when I go inside the salon I feel like I want to cry, I want to be alone.” In 2016, after nail salon workers organized to expose the rampant abuse in the nail salon industry, the state implemented a series of new regulations that would force nail salons to provide adequate ventilation as a way to mitigate the toxic effects of the chemicals often used by workers. Existing nail salon businesses were initially given five years to comply, and regulations went into effect on October 4, 2021. However, citing difficulties borne by the pandemic, these requirements were delayed twice by Governor Hochul, giving businesses another year to come into compliance with the requirements. Meanwhile, many nail salon workers, like Dash, have suffered from debilitating reproductive health issues. A recent report by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and

continued on page 6

Nail Salon Workers / continued from page 5 Health (NYCOSH) found that 20 percent of nail salon workers reported having had issues with their reproductive health, compared to 11 percent of the general U.S. population of women of reproductive age who have had reproductive issues. The study, which surveyed 142 nail salon workers in New York, also found that 25 percent of nail techs had complications during pregnancy, compared to just eight percent of all pregnancies in the U.S. In fact, the study found that nail salon workers were more than three times as likely to have babies born with birth defects than the general population. “For decades, workers have spoken about reproductive damage as a result of their chemical exposure in nail salons,” said Charlene Obernauer, Executive Director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH). “The results of our survey show what workers have consistently said about their health and well-being; ventilation regulations are essential to reducing this exposure and helping to create healthier nail salons for workers, customers, and owners alike. This is not just a workers’ rights issue, it’s a reproductive justice issue.” Aaron Lamplugh, a research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, has done extensive research into the level of toxins nail salon workers are exposed to and found the risks to the women workers are significant. “There are a lot of chemicals in nail salons. It’s sort of a chemical soup,” he said. “We definitely measured unusually high levels of benzene, toluene, and other chemicals, all sorts of chemicals well associated with nail products.” Chemicals such as benzene, which is found in some nail polishes are well-documented to cause significant birth defects when exposed to high dosages. Toluene, which also can be found in nail polish and fingernail glue, can cause kidney or liver damage as well as cause birth defects. Long-term exposure to Dibutyl phthalate, a common ingredient in nail polish, is known to cause miscarriages. Although the most toxic effects are only associated with high and persistent exposure, nail salon workers often work long hours in often tiny, unventilated storefronts day in and day out. “The exposure that a lot of these workers are experiencing, there is a lot of potential for them to have adverse health consequences later in life,” Lamplugh said. Like most of her coworkers, Dash was not aware of the prescient dangers she was exposed to on a daily basis. She didn’t realize that some of the nail polish bottles had warning labels written on them. At the time, she was not as proficient in English as she is now, and many of her coworkers didn’t understand what was written on the bottles. Only after she began to be involved with Adhikaar, a women-led worker’s center that services the Nepali-speaking community, did she become aware of the danger. “There is already written on the color [nail polish] that this color may be harmful to you while you pregnant but we didn’t know that,” said Dash. “ Later I read this for myself and learned that formaldehyde is not good for reproductive health.” Senator Jessica Ramos, Chair of the Senate Labor Committee and sponsor of the Nail Salon Minimum Standards Council Act is grateful that ventilation regulations have finally gone into effect but, wishes it had come sooner. “In order to do their part in ensuring the small businesses that employ them made it through the pandemic, workers compromised on a delay of the implementation of these ventilation standards,” she said. The choice between their livelihood and their health is not one we should be asking workers to make.” Since quitting the nail salon industry, Dash was finally able to have a son. She has taken on a leadership role in Adhikaar where she has met so many other women who experienced miscarriages or gave birth to children with birth defects. It’s never easy. When she thinks back on what she was forced to experience it pains her. “Is this a human rights country, is this the way they treat women who have miscarriages?” she said. “It’s really hard and these are the things that make me depressed.” Although there was a time when she wouldn’t talk about her miscarriages out of shame, she now feels that she has to so that other women don’t go through the same experience as she did. “I really don’t want to go deeper and deeper but I have to because those are the things that happened in my life and this is not acceptable. l Reprinted with kind permission. Article first published on October 12, 2022 by DocumentedNY.

CM Carmen De La Rosa. Photo: carmenfornyc.com

To Separate or not to Separate? That is the Question!

BY JANET HOWARD

If you and your partner have been struggling to get along, facing impossible obstacles, or simply fighting constantly, you might be thinking about separating from them. The choice to separate can be either temporary or permanent, but is often viewed as a way for you to enjoy some time apart from one another and re-evaluate how your relationship will function moving forward. Before you talk with your spouse about separating, however, it's important to consider how this choice will impact your life. Here's what you need to think about.

1. Will this be permanent? For some couples, the choice to separate is a temporary one. If you simply need a break from your partner, but aren't interested in divorce or permanent separation, make sure you focus on this when you bring up the topic. Let them know that you do not want a permanent separation, but rather, that you need some time to yourself. A temporary separation can be a positive way to decide whether you want to continue living alone or whether your relationship is worth salvaging. Sometimes having some time apart can give you the clarity you've been searching for and can help you make important decisions about your future.

2. Is counseling an option? Before you rush off to rent your own apartment, consider whether you and your partner should attend therapy or counseling together. Sometimes communicating in a more effective way can be beneficial. A therapist can help you accomplish this. If you and your partner constantly struggle to demonstrate your opinions and express your ideas in a healthy way, counseling could give you the skills you need to move forward and could prevent you from separating. Additionally, if you have children, family therapy can be quite beneficial after periods of stress.

3. How will your children be impacted? When there are children involved, it's important to consider how the separation will affect them. Whether your kids are five years old or seventeen, they will experience changes when you and your partner separate from one another. You'll need to decide who your children will live with, how you'll handle custody arrangements, and whether they'll continue attending the same school. For some kids, dealing with separation can be emotionally stressful, so you'll need to be ready to handle that. Open communication is very important for any family, but is especially vital when you're thinking about separating. Your kids will need to be reassured that you and your partner still love them.

No matter what type of situation you're dealing with, it's important to consult with an attorney in your state before you choose to separate. There may be legal steps you need to take before you and your partner take a break, so make sure you reach out to an attorney today. Your lawyer can guide you throughout the separation process and will let you know what steps you need to take in order to make your separation a legal one. Questions? Ask the Lawyer. Get a FREE consultation. Call 855-768-8845 or visit www.askthelawyer.us l

The Supreme Court Takes on Enforcement Priorities and Other Immigration Questions in Its 2022 – 2023 Term

BY EMMA WINGER

The Supreme Court will tackle more hot button immigration issues in its 2022 – 2023 term. Front and center is the Biden administration’s effort to set immigration enforcement priorities. But the Court will also consider what a noncitizen must do to get federal court review of immigration court decisions. It may also accept review of more immigration cases before the term is up.

United States v. Texas The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in United States v. Texas, the lawsuit brought by Texas and Louisiana attacking the immigration enforcement guidelines issued by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in September 2021. A federal court in Texas vacated the guidelines nationwide—a decision upheld by a court of appeals.

United States v. Texas requires the Court to weigh in once again into a policy dispute between Texas and other states and the Biden administration. It calls into question the federal government’s authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion—the right to decide who to arrest and remove. As former DHS officials argue, for decades—across Democratic and Republican administrations—written priorities have been essential for effective immigration enforcement.

The Court will consider three key questions: 1. When can a state challenge a federal immigration policy in court? In other words, does Texas even have a right to bring this case? To bring the lawsuit, the states have to show that the enforcement priorities have harmed them in some way. Texas says the policy has harmed it because (according to Texas) the enforcement priorities will increase its population of noncitizens. Spending money on noncitizen residents, Texas argues, hurts Texas. The federal government says Texas is just speculating that the priorities will increase its noncitizen population. The enforcement priorities do not call for less enforcement—only guided enforcement. Advocates argue that Texas’ dislike of supporting its noncitizen residents is discriminatory and should not give it the right to sue. During oral argument, some of the Justices expressed doubt that Texas had shown enough harm. How the Court lands on this important question may shape the future of state lawsuits designed to challenge federal immigration policy.

2. Do the enforcement priorities violate immigration law? The next question the Justices must consider is whether the immigration enforcement policy is illegal. Texas and Louisiana argue that immigration law requires the federal government to arrest and detain all noncitizens with certain criminal convictions or orders of removal. According to the states, the guidelines impermissibly limit who U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will arrest. The federal government argues that immigration law only requires the detention of certain categories of noncitizens if ICE has already decided to pursue their deportation. If ICE exercises its prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal, it need not (and should not) detain the person. Moreover, the government argues, it does not have the resources to arrest all removable noncitizens. The Justices pressed both sides on this issue, but Justices Sotomayor and Brown Jackson seemed most convinced that the immigration statute does not limit DHS’ prosecutorial discretion to decide whether to arrest and seek removal of particular noncitizens.

3. If the policy is illegal, did the lower court have the power to set aside the policy nationwide? This last question follows the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez. That decision prohibits lower courts from entering an injunction that instructs federal immigration officials to act in a specific way regarding law that governs “inspection, apprehension, examination, and removal . . .” The Supreme Court will have to decide whether the lower court’s decision violates Aleman Gonzalez and the Administrative Procedure Act. The outcome may determine the powers of lower courts to remedy the government’s illegal immigration policies and practices.

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland The Court will hear argument on January 17, 2023 in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland. The case asks what steps a noncitizen must take to have their immigration court proceedings reviewed by a federal court of appeals. Immigration courts are high volume administrative courts making life or death decisions. One prominent immigration judge describes them as “death penalty cases heard in traffic court settings.” Immigration judges often make mistakes. Federal court review is essential. But immigration law creates hurdles to that review. One requirement is that the noncitizen—who often does not have a lawyer—cannot raise new legal arguments before the federal appeals court. They must make all legal arguments in front of the administrative appeals court—the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—before they can make them in federal court. In Santos-Zacaria, the Court will consider two questions: (1) whether a noncitizen’s failure to make a legal argument before the BIA completely bars them from raising the argument at the federal court of appeals, or if the court of appeals can waive that requirement; and (2) when the BIA makes a new mistake (different from the mistakes made by the immigration judge), does the noncitizen have to file another motion in front of the BIA or can they go straight to the court of appeals. The outcome of this case has the potential to make it even more difficult for noncitizens to appeal their decisions— and for the overburdened BIA to process cases—or it may remove hurdles to a fair review process. Given the issues pending before it, the Supreme Court will continue to play a significant role in shaping U.S. immigration law and policy. In addition to United States v. Texas and Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, the Court is still considering whether to take on other immigration cases that touch on issues such as federal court review, the immigration consequences of certain criminal convictions, and the constitutionality of a federal statute that criminalizes encouraging unlawful immigration.l