Hide table of contents

Dear EA Forum Readers,

Legal Impact for Chickens is looking for a passionate and hard-working Operations Specialist to join us as we continue to grow our nonprofit and fight for animals. This is a new position, and you will have the ability to influence our operations and play an important role in our work.

The responsibilities of this position are varied, covering operational, administrative, and paralegal work, and we will consider a variety of candidates and experiences. Therefore, the final job title may differ depending on the final candidate.

Want to join us?

 

About our work and why you should join us

Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC) is a 501(c)(3) litigation nonprofit. We work to protect farmed animals.

You may have seen our Costco shareholder derivative suit in The Washington Post, Fox Business, or CNN Business—or even on TikTok.

You also may have heard of LIC from our recent Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) recommendation.

Now, we’re looking for our next hire: an entrepreneurial Operations Specialist to support us in our fight for animals!

Legal Impact for Chickens is currently a team of three litigators. You will join LIC as our first non-litigator employee and support the entire team.

 

About you

You might be a great fit for this position if you have many of the following qualities:

• Passion for helping farmed animals

• Extremely organized, thoughtful, and dependable

• Strong interpersonal skills

• Interest in the law and belief that litigation can help animals

• Zealous, creative, and enthusiastic

• Excited to build this startup nonprofit!

• Willingness to help with all types of nonprofit startup work, from litigation support to HR to finance

• Strong work ethic and initiative

• Love of learning

• Paralegal experience or certificate preferred, but not required

• Experience with various aspects of operations (such as bookkeeping and IT) preferred, but not required

• Experience growing a new team preferred, but not required

• Kind to our fellow humans, and excited about creating a welcoming, inclusive team

 

About the role

You will be an integral part of LIC. You’ll help shape our organization’s future.

Your role will be a combination of (1) assisting the lawyers with litigation tasks, and (2) helping with everything else we need to do, to build and run a growing nonprofit organization!

Since this is such a small organization, you’ll wear many hats: Sometimes you’ll act as a paralegal, formatting a table of authorities, performing legal research, or preparing a binder for a hearing. Sometimes you’ll act as an HR manager, making sure we have the right trainings and benefits available. Sometimes you’ll act as an administrative assistant, tracking expenditures and donations, booking travel arrangements, or helping LIC’s president with email management. Sometimes you’ll act as LIC’s front line for communicating with the public, monitoring info@legalimpactforchickens.org emails, thanking donors, or making calls to customer service representatives on LIC’s behalf. Sometimes you’ll pitch in on LIC’s communications, social media, and public education efforts. If you’re the kind of person who likes to handle many different types of work, this role is for you!

This job offers tremendous opportunity for professional growth and the ability to create valuable impact for animals. The hope is for you to become an indispensable, long-time member of our new team.

Commitment: Full time

Location and travel: This is a remote, U.S.-based position. You must be available to travel for work as needed, since we will litigate all over the country.

Reports to: Alene Anello, LIC’s president

Salary: $50,000–$70,000 depending on experience

Benefits: Health insurance (with ability to buy dental), 401(k), life insurance, flexible schedule, unlimited PTO (plus mandatory vacation!), room for advancement as the organization grows

 

One more thing!

LIC is an equal opportunity employer. Women, people of color, and those from other marginalized groups are strongly encouraged to apply. Applicants will receive consideration without regard to race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, disability, age, medical condition, veteran status, marital status, political affiliation, or any other protected characteristic.

 

To Apply

To apply, please email your cover letter and resume, combined as one PDF, to info@legalimpactforchickens.org.

 

Thank you for your time and your compassion!

Sincerely,

Legal Impact for Chickens

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
(Audio version here, or search for "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app.) > “There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall?”  > > - C.S. Lewis “The Human Condition,” by René Magritte (Image source here) 1. Introduction Sometimes, my thinking feels more “real” to me; and sometimes, it feels more “fake.” I want to do the real version, so I want to understand this spectrum better. This essay offers some reflections.  I give a bunch of examples of this “fake vs. real” spectrum below -- in AI, philosophy, competitive debate, everyday life, and religion. My current sense is that it brings together a cluster of related dimensions, namely: * Map vs. world: Is my mind directed at an abstraction, or it is trying to see past its model to the world beyond? * Hollow vs. solid: Am I using concepts/premises/frames that I secretly suspect are bullshit, or do I expect them to point at basically real stuff, even if imperfectly? * Rote vs. new: Is the thinking pre-computed, or is new processing occurring? * Soldier vs. scout: Is the thinking trying to defend a pre-chosen position, or is it just trying to get to the truth? * Dry vs. visceral: Does the content feel abstract and heady, or does it grip me at some more gut level? These dimensions aren’t the same. But I think they’re correlated – and I offer some speculations about why. In particular, I speculate about their relationship to the “telos” of thinking – that is, to the thing that thinking is “supposed to” do.  I also describe some tags I’m currently using when I remind myself to “really think.” In particular:  * Going slow * Following curiosity/aliveness * Staying in touch with why I’m thinking about something * Tethering my concepts to referents that feel “real” to me * Reminding myself that “arguments are lenses on the world” * Tuning into a relaxing sense of “helplessness” about the truth * Just actually imagining differ
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as