bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Protecting Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs : Lessons From Mississippi HB 1523
No full textThe United States Supreme Court\u27s revolutionary ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed marriage equality for homosexual couples in every state, gave life to a new challenge in the area of free exercise of religion: to what extent should persons with religious objections to same-sex marriages be forced to participate in them? Should a Christian baker be legally required to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage to which he or she objects? Must a county clerk with religious objections to homosexual marriage sign a marriage license for a same-sex couple?
In an attempt to pre-empt these types of issues, Mississippi\u27s legislature passed House Bill 1523 which protects three sincerely held religious beliefs. The bill extends protections to those who hold the belief that: (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual\u27s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth
Labor Pains: The Inadequacies of Current Federal Pregnancy Laws and the Alternative Routes to Accommodation
No full textAlthough many women are able to work through their pregnancies without employer accommodations, some pregnant workers who require accommodations are forced out of their jobs unnecessarily when minor adjustments would enable them to keep working. In 2003, a hardware assembler in Ohio was terminated after her doctor limited her weight-lifting to twenty pounds and ordered that she work no more than eight hours at a time. In 2009, a retail worker in Kansas was fired because she needed to keep a water bottle with her in order to stay hydrated and prevent bladder infections. In 2011, an activity director at a nursing home in Indiana was terminated because she required light-duty accommodations, in order to avoid having a miscarriage.
Recently, legal commentators have advanced three approaches in an attempt to secure affirmative rights to workplace accommodations for pregnant women. The first argument highlights that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, should provide pregnant workers to any accommodations offered to other employees who are similar in their ability to work. The second argument propounded is that pregnancy should be included in the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and that pregnancy should be accommodated as a disability. The third argument is that pregnant workers need a separate statute that entitles them to workplace accommodations
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. V. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County: An Exploration of the Arises Out Of Prong in Personal Jurisdiction
No full textThe concept of personal jurisdiction in its modern context has existed since the early 1900s. In time, courts have vetted the idea that an individual, company, or legal entity may be brought under the jurisdiction of a state or federal court by reason of its particular contacts with the jurisdiction. In its creation, the Supreme Court of the United States added the requirement that the contact must arise out of or relate to the forum state. But dismally, the Court has provided very little on how to apply and operate the arise out of prong. As a result, both federal and state courts struggle to practically apply this doctrine and in turn, a variety of confusing and conflicting tests have been created.
In attempting to clarify the meaning of the arises out of prong, the United States Supreme Court recently considered the jurisdictional dilemma of Bristol-Myers Squibb ( BMS ), a large company that was nearly brought under the purview of a California state court. Unfortunately, in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, the Supreme Court has failed to rectify the confusion.
This Note examines the law surrounding BMS\u27s victory
A Path Toward Race-Conscious Standards for Youth: Translating Adultification Bias Theory into Doctrinal Interventions in Criminal Court
No full textThis article demonstrates how advocates can leverage empirical literature regarding adultification bias to craft doctrinal interventions that recognize and remedy the disproportionately harsh treatment of Black youth in the juvenile and adult criminal legal system. Through case examples, all of which I litigated in the Civil Rights Clinic at Seattle University School of Law, I demonstrate how adultification bias was used to explain the racial disproportionality in the transfer of young people to adult court for prosecution, as well as the harshness of the sentences received by young people in both juvenile and adult court. These cases provide roadmaps for clinicians and advocates to educate criminal legal system stakeholders about the risk of adultification bias and other forms of implicit bias, either as amicus or in direct service to clients. The briefs proposed new legal standards in cases that require criminal legal system stakeholders to account for adultification bias. These litigation strategies are designed to obtain outcomes for clients that account for one way that race plays a role in prosecutorial and judicial decision-making, a problem which is clear in the aggregate but has historically evaded remedy in individual cases. These proposals also provide a concrete example of how law school clinics can put theory into practice and produce doctrinal interventions that advance racial justice
Justice, a Photo Series
No full textThe following two photos were shot as part of a photo series at a Black Lives Matter protest in Long Beach, California circa 2018. These photos were shot on black and white film with a vintage 35mm Rangefinder
Gibbs v. State [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 13. 543 P.3d 1185 (Mar. 7, 2024)
No full textAbsent additional evidence of waiver, a defendant does not waive his attorney-client privilege even when he makes phone calls during pretrial detention that are in violation of detention center phone use policy and uses a three-way phone service to connect to his defense investigator. Though district courts use discretion in admitting or denying evidence, these uses of discretion can be reviewed on appeal, and reversed if not harmless
