556 research outputs found
Sort by
Show Me the Money The Applicability of Contract Laws Ratification and TenderBack Doctrines to Title VII Releases
Get PDF
Strange Bedfellows: How the NCAA and EA Sports May Have Violated Antitrust and Right of Publicity Laws to Make a Profit at the Exploitation of Intercollegiate Amateurism
Get PDFIn the Trenches of Florida’s War on Gangs: A Framework for Prosecuting Florida’s Anti-Gang Sentence Enhancement Provision
Get PDFThis article discusses how the State of Florida prosecutes under the new sentence enhancement provision of Florida’s anti-gang statute. Part I discusses the general history of the provision. Part II analyzes different state approaches to the enhancement provision. Finally, Part III concludes the article with two recommendations. First, a statutory response that provides all courts in the State with clear direction to implement this provision. Second, a judicial approach for Florida courts to consistently implement a provision that is essential to Florida’s war on criminal gangs
Respecting Working Mothers with Infant Children: The Need for Increased Federal Intervention to Develop, Protect, and Support a Breastfeeding Culture in the United States
Get PDFThe author argues that the benefits of breastfeeding are overwhelming and that more needs to be done to ensure that all women have a viable option to continue breastfeeding upon returning to work, particularly the working poor and minorities. Those least likely to breastfeed are more likely to be part of an at risk population in terms of health. Most significantly, the lack of a cohesive policy in the workplace has had a disparate impact on the most vulnerable populations of breastfeeding mothers and their children. The lack of federal protection and a patchwork of protection in the states have contributed to our failure to achieve breastfeeding goals set in the 1990\u27s. Federal laws and decisions are reviewed. The author has undertaken a comprehensive review of the state statutes to demonstrate the disparities in protection. The review also serves as a guide for potential federal legislation. Federal legislation must provide a floor beneath which no mother may fall. The author proposes what components are crucial in enacting such legislation and examines a bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives
The \u27Show\u27 in the \u27Show Trial\u27: Contextualizing the Politicization of the Courtroom
Get PDFQuestioning the indifference of the law to its own normative correctness and its claim to legitimacy, this article explores the epistemological and ontological foundations upon which the concept and lexicon of show trial is predicated. By invoking the theory of performativity, the article distinguishes between the different models of show trials to allow for a more complex and nuanced reading of the particular nature of the show in judicial practices often called ‘show trials.’ By emphasizing the peculiarity of the ‘show’ in each ‘show trial’, the article seeks to reconceptualize the ambit of the criminal trial. Arguing against the emphasis on the label, it seeks to go beyond the semantics to reveal what is concealed in the invocation of the discourse of justice. It then goes on to analyze the ability of the criminal trial to survive radical political agendas aimed at shaping events outside the courtroom. The article will conclude with some reflections on the interrelationship between the juridical purposes of the trial, the nature of strategized communication, and the performative trial
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts: The Future of the Confrontation Clause
Get PDFThe purpose of this article is to show the error in the majorities’ decision in Melendez-Diaz by approaching the issue from two perspectives. First, by investigating the cases and legal doctrines created by the Supreme Court in the years preceding Melendez-Diaz, this article will demonstrate why the case was erroneously decided. Second, this article explores the possibility that the majority decision was correct and thus the recently devised standard in Crawford v. Washington is inherently flawed. This article will further discuss the prior application of law before the Melendez-Diaz decision, offer analysis on the string of cases that led to the Melendez-Diaz decision, and evaluate where the law went wrong. Finally, this article will introduce a revised legal doctrine on what should be considered testimonial evidence against an accused based upon sound policy considerations and the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused
“Runaway Train”: Controlling Crimes Committed by Private Contractors Through Application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Get PDFThis paper will argue that, in the absence of effective alternatives, the new law granting court-martial jurisdiction over civilians is a necessary step in effectively controlling crimes by private contractors and other civilians accompanying U.S. armed forces overseas if other measures are not effectuated. Part II will look at two important Supreme Court decisions that currently restrict the military’s ability to court-martial civilians, and it will also highlight the government’s attempts over the past 50 years to come up with a solution to the problem. Part III will examine three alternatives to the amendment to Article 2(a)(10) that could make the amendment unnecessary if they are effectively implemented. Part IV examines the new Article 2(a)(10), highlights the constitutional concerns it raises, and will show that these concerns can be overcome. Part V briefly discusses Supreme Court precedent that could allow court-martialing of civilians to be a constitutional alternative to the civilian criminal process. The paper will conclude that, if other effective measures are not implemented, the amendment to Article 2(a)(10) is necessary to control contractor crime, and that the Supreme Court should uphold the new law if a future challenge arises
Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool
Get PDFThis article will address one of the specific logical fallacies known as the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, discuss the place of formal logic in legal reasoning, describe the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, demonstrate how courts have explicitly used the fallacy in deciding cases, and detail how litigators can use the Fallacy to win cases
War and Peace between Title VII\u27s Disparate Impact Provision and the Equal Protection Clause: Battling for a Compelling Interest
Get PDF“[T]he war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how – and on what terms – to make peace between them.” This Article addresses Justice Scalia’s premonition in Ricci v. DeStefano by providing an analysis of how that war may be waged and whether peace can be made between Title VII’s disparate impact provision and the Equal Protection Clause. Ricci involved a challenge to the City of New Haven’s decision to void the test results of an examination required for promotion within the City’s fire department. The test adversely affected African-American firefighters, who passed the examination at a lower rate than Caucasian firefighters. Because of the disproportionate number of African-American firefighters who failed the test, the City feared that it would be subject to discrimination lawsuits under the disparate impact provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Disparate impact focuses on the results of employment decisions and imposes liability when employment practices cause a disparate impact on the basis of race or any other protected class. “The City was faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability” because the pass rates for the Hispanic and African-American test takers fell below the 80% rule. Consequently, the City refused to certify the tests and thereby voided the results. This Article seeks to answer the constitutional question left unresolved in Ricci – whether Title VII’s disparate impact provision violates the Equal Protection Clause by requiring employers to consider race in their employment practices. This Article seeks to test Title VII’s disparate impact provision under strict scrutiny to determine if it can survive an Equal Protection challenge. This Article’s focus is to provide an extensive search for a compelling purpose that may justify the racial classifications that are required under Title VII’s disparate impact provision. Operating on the assumption that the disparate impact provision implicates racial classifications, this Article examines six rationales that may be asserted as compelling interests to defend the provision against an Equal Protection challenge: (1) remedying past discrimination; (2) smoking out discrimination (intentional or unconscious); (3) obtaining the benefits of diversity; (4) providing role models; (5) satisfying an operational need; and (6) providing equal employment opportunity by removing barriers. Finally, this Article anticipates the attacks that may be lodged against those defenses