Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Judicial Review of Teacher-School Board Grievance Arbitration: An Extended Empirical Analysis
No full textIn recent years, the overall state law framework for teacher-school board collective bargaining has undergone limited revisions. The basic distribution has been that approximately two-thirds of the state laws authorize collective bargaining for public school teachers, with the remaining state laws either silent or prohibitive. During the past fifteen years, a few states have curtailed or eliminated their applicable laws, with the leading respective examples being Wisconsin and Tennessee, and at least one state, Virginia, shifting in favor of collective bargaining.
The courts have added few direct revisions. The Supreme Court’s ruling that agency shop provisions in public sector collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) violate the First Amendment poses an indirect effect in terms of teacher union membership.
The majority of these state laws that provide for teacher-board collective bargaining include grievance procedures as mandatory subjects of bargaining. Yet, despite its importance as the culminating, binding, and third-party step in the grievance process under CBAs, teacher-board arbitration has received scant scholarly attention. Although an occasional study has examined grievance arbitration awards for one or more issues within the public school sector, judicial review of teacher-school board grievance arbitration has largely escaped recent and systematic scholarship.
The purpose of this article is to synthesize and update the previous limited line of empirical analyses of court rulings specific to grievance arbitration under a teacher-school board CBA. The first part provides the legal backdrop for this empirical analysis. The second part reviews the pertinent previous research. The final part reports and discusses the updated findings for the seventeen-year period from 2006 through to the end of 2022
Freeing Females from Toplessness Bans: A Strict Scrutiny Analysis
No full textMales may exhibit their bare chests on outdoor public property their entire lives. In many locations, this fundamental right to bodily autonomy afforded to men is denied to women. This Comment examines the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in conjunction with the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and focuses on the regulations forbidding female breast exposure. The assumption that female breasts require coverage due to their provocative nature normalizes and entrenches problematic issues, particularly the objectification of women, into law. The fundamental right to bodily autonomy requires protection over arbitrary and capricious social norms. This Comment stresses courts must establish the correct strict scrutiny standard of review to analyze female toplessness ban
Privacy Shield 2.0: A New Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework Between the European Union and the United States
No full textThis Article is the first to thoroughly examine the new adequacy decision for the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (also known as “Privacy Shield 2.0”), including the relevant events and milestones ultimately leading to its adoption. The European Commission adopted the new Privacy Shield on July 10, 2023, to restore transatlantic data flows and commercial exchanges between the European Union and the United States. This Article first explores the holdings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the groundbreaking cases Schrems I and Schrems II and elaborates on the reasons for the invalidation of the Safe Harbor Decision and the Privacy Shield Decision, respectively. It then examines the practical implications of the invalidation of the Privacy Shield Decision in Schrems II, including the recent decision of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner regarding Meta Platforms Ireland Limited (formerly Facebook Ireland Limited). This Article subsequently discusses the efforts of the United States government and the European Commission toward the adoption of Privacy Shield 2.0. It analyzes recent events, from the announcement of a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework to the release of the Executive Order on Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities to the European Commission’s draft adequacy decision, the launch of its adoption process, and ultimately its adoption.
This Article argues that despite the excitement of a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework, it is improbable that the validity of Privacy Shield 2.0 would be upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union in a possible Schrems III case. Although Privacy Shield 2.0 is a considerable improvement compared to the previously invalidated Privacy Shield Decision, it is likely that the Court of Justice of the European Union would consider the newly introduced safeguards for United States signals intelligence activities insufficient to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation’s requirements, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This Article demonstrates the shortcomings of Privacy Shield 2.0 concerning the principles of necessity and proportionality as well as the right to effective judicial protection. It also argues for a comprehensive U.S. federal privacy law that ensures adequate protection of personal data for all data subjects in the United States
Privacy Laws in the USA, Europe, and South Africa
No full texthttps://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/book-contributions/1029/thumbnail.jp