LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Navigating 1L First-Gen Professional Office Hours
No full textPlease join us for an informal office hour for an opportunity to connect with 2lL & 3L first generation professionals/law students. This is a casual event where 1L first gen students/profession are are encouraged to ask questions and gain insight from those who have navigated the legal field without a blueprint.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1000/thumbnail.jp
Kukin Program for Conflict Resolution Presents the Documentary Screening of Centered: Joe Lieberman
No full textIn an era where the pollical divide seems wider than ever, Lieberman\u27s story is more urgent and relevant every day. The film explores this life a career in ways that challenge to think about the future of democracy and how we can find ways to work together. No matter our differences.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1013/thumbnail.jp
A Framework for Trauma-Informed Mediation: A Heart and Mind Approach to Conflict Resolution
No full textUnresolved trauma histories can have both short and long-term consequences on children and parents\u27 overall functioning. Using a trauma-informed approach to mediation, we first briefly highlight the impactofadversechildhood experiencesandunresolvedtraumasonadults. We then consider the various vulnerabilities and activations presented within mediation and the fundamental principles of trauma-informed mediation to assist parties in remaining within the window of tolerance during the mediation. Trauma-informed mediation is an approach that encourages mediators to be aware of potential trauma activations and to engage in compassionate practices to allow parties to engage within their own individualized window of tolerance to resolve disputes. We explore the unique features of trauma-informed mediation and provide practical strategies to integrate these features in mediation with families
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