LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Panel 1: Sounds Like Trouble: AI, Music, and the Limits of Copyright
No full textModerator: Professor Marc D. Ostrow
Speakers: Michael Goodyear, Loren E. Mulraine, Sherri Burr, and Andrew Lef
Fireside Chat with Justice Malloy, Chief Justice of the District of the U.S. Virgin Islands
No full textDisability-Related Misconduct and the Untapped Potential of the Disparate Impact Theory
No full textDisabilities often manifest themselves in behavior that could be characterized as misconduct. Since the early days of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), courts have struggled with how to treat disability-related misconduct in the workplace. In Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court indicated that terminating an employee for violating a neutral, generally applicable conduct rule is not disparate treatment because of disability. Instead, the Court suggested that concern about the effect of such a rule on a disabled employee should be addressed under the disparate impact theory of discrimination. In the years that followed, Congress enacted the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued enforcement guidance on applying conduct standards to employees with disabilities. This Article explores courts’ current treatment of disability-related misconduct, focusing on the three forms of disability discrimination prohibited by the ADA: disparate treatment, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and disparate impact. It reveals that the law of disparate treatment and the duty of reasonable accommodation incentivize employers to adopt zero-tolerance policies under which the sanction for certain types of misconduct is always termination. Moreover, courts rarely utilize the disparate impact theory in disability-related misconduct cases, even though conduct rules in general—and zero-tolerance conduct rules in particular—are likely to have an exclusionary effect on individuals with disabilities. This neglect of the disparate impact theory is a mistake. Courts and litigants should take the disparate impact approach seriously in disability-related misconduct cases via an individualized analysis of both the exclusionary effect of the conduct rule and whether it is sufficiently related to success on the job. Courts should examine closely whether the conduct rule in question—including the strictness of its application—is job-related and consistent with business necessity as applied to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is unlikely to violate the rule in the future, if her misconduct is not serious in nature, and if her level of fault is low with respect to both the misconduct and not requesting a reasonable accommodation prospectively, terminating the plaintiff for violating the rule constitutes disparate impact discrimination. The plaintiff may have violated a neutral conduct rule, but the employer has violated the ADA
Do Civil Penalties Punish? The FBAR Penalty and the Case for an Emboldened Excessive Fines Clause
No full textThe Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) regime authorizes the IRS to impose severe penalties—up to the greater of 10,000. While the Eighth Amendment protects Americans from “excessive fines,” circuit courts are split on whether the FBAR penalty constitutes a fine and is subject to constitutional scrutiny. Some courts have found that the FBAR penalty is wholly remedial and beyond the reach of the Excessive Fines Clause, but this Note argues that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the history and case law of the provision. Furthermore, this Note critiques the inconsistent application of the Supreme Court’s test for identifying punitive sanctions by lower courts and contends that the current presumption in favor of remedial intent unduly limits judicial review. It proposes reversing that presumption, requiring the government to affirmatively demonstrate a remedial purpose before exempting penalties from Eighth Amendment safeguards
The British Museum\u27s Deceit in the Parthenon Marbles Controversy
No full textThe article challenges the British claim of legal ownership over the Parthenon sculptures, arguing that the documents cited by the British government and the British Museum to justify the removal of the marbles are flawed and intentionally misleading. Through a detailed analysis of the Italian and English documents, the article demonstrates that the British narrative of lawful removal lacks credibility, as the documents contain significant discrepancies and mistranslations that undermine their validity. The evidence presented, including scholarly critiques, conclusively discredits the British claim, emphasizing the need for accountability and the return of the marbles to Greece
Getting To Know Tax Law: A Conversation with Professors and Practitioners
No full texthttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1042/thumbnail.jp
My Murdered Friend Eli
No full textOn the first night of Hanukkah, I learned that Eli Schlanger, a rabbi I had known for decades, was gunned down at a Hanukkah celebration he had organized in Sydney, attended by roughly 1,000 people. When Eli and I were 16, we volunteered together at a summer camp for indigent Ukrainian boys in Odesa. The early mornings we spent watching the sun rise over the beach, as he spoke with quiet certainty about his dream of becoming a rabbi and building a Jewish community, are etched in my memory. He was killed doing the work he’d dreamed of
The Legal Reckoning of Reality Television: Contestant Rights and Producer Responsibilities
No full textReality television has become a dominant force in modern entertainment. Behind the scenes, however, contestants face serious legal and ethical concerns. Many reality TV participants allege exploitative working conditions, misleading contracts, and inadequate compensation. Traditionally, networks classify contestants as independent contractors, exempting them from labor protections such as minimum wage and overtime pay
The Resurgence of the RAP Act: Why Industry Professionals Enthusiastically Support This Bill
No full textArtists release music and write songs to create art, not to offer any sort of criminal confession. Yet, dating back to a 1996 criminal trial involving Snoop Dogg, artists’ lyrics have been admissible as evidence in criminal and civil trials. Most recently, rapper Young Thug, was accused of being the head of a violent gang based solely on lyrics from his songs as evidence. His case sparked nationwide controversy regarding the constitutionality of his lyrics being admitted as key evidence at trial. The rapper’s popular music collective known as “Young Stoner Life,” was posited by prosecutors to actually be a violent Atlanta gang known as “Young Slime Life.” Young Thug’s attorney proclaimed that prosecutors were “targeting the right to free speech, and that’s wrong.” To date, there have been more than 820 instances identified in which an artist’s creative works have been used in criminal trials
Cardozo’s Sports Law Society and Antitrust Society Host House Settlement Lecture and Panel
No full textPanelists for the event: Professor Marc Edelman, Bob Boland (Partner, Shumaker LLP), Michael Hsu (Co-founder, College Basketball Players Association), Adam Dale (Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP), Neha Vyas (Associate, Winston & Strawn LLP), Paul McDonald (Managing Partner, PL McDonald Law LLC), and Chris Brolley (Associate, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP).
On Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Cardozo’s Sports Law Society and Antitrust Society hosted a lecture and panel discussion regarding the implications of the House v. NCAA lawsuit and settlement. This included the potential for future antitrust liability as a result of the settlement, Title IX implications, the employment status of college athletes, and more. The event was titled “THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS: HOUSE v. NCAA Sports & Antitrust Law Panel.” Registration for 2 New York State CLE credits were available, and the lecture and panel were followed by a networking reception