5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Racial Pay Equity in “White” Collar Workplaces
Get PDFPart I outlines the many ways that corporate employers fail in racial equity efforts and the barriers that have been put into place to keep BIPOC workers from succeeding. Drawing from industrial organizational psychology and sociology, I identify six distinct challenges that must be remedied or ameliorated in order for BIPOC to achieve pay equity in the corporate climate. Part II identifies and analyzes the decades of litigation and class action settlements that have tried and failed to address the persistent lack of BIPOC representation in the financial industry. I categorize these cases into three waves of litigation intended to fix the barriers BIPOC face and then analyze why these class wide settlements and resulting consent decrees failed to move the needle on racial pay equity.
Finally, Part III provides a path forward by identifying interventions, adopted from the most recent social science research, that financial sector employers can implement to align themselves with racial pay equity goals. It provides a blueprint that can go a long way in making financial sector workplaces more equitable for their BIPOC workers
What is the Territorial Scope of the Lanham Act?
Get PDFSince Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952), the Supreme Court has not addressed the territorial scope of the Lanham Act. Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. is an opportunity for the Court to clarify how its RJR Nabisco extraterritoriality framework applies to the Lanham Act, whether and how current circuit court tests fit into the framework, and whether any of the tests should apply in the second step of the framework
Beavor v. Tomsheck, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nov. 10, 2022)
Get PDFIn an opinion written by Justice Hardesty, the Nevada Supreme Court evaluated whether assignment of proceeds towards an opponent in the same litigation where the legal malpractice arose is valid. The Nevada Supreme Court held that it is invalid because of the violation of public policy. The Court followed the precedent set out in Tower Homes, LLC v. Heaton, which held that assignments for legal malpractice claims prohibited public policy. The Court held that the district court ruled correctly by invalidating the assignment. However, an invalid assignment would not preclude an injured client from pursuing a legal malpractice claim where the assignment is no longer a factor
In re B.J.W.-A., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 12, 2023)
Get PDFThe Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the exception to the category A felony designation for lewdness with a child under NRS 201.230, and considered whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in certifying the appellant to stand trial as an adult. B.J. appealed the juvenile court decision to not accept jurisdiction and to certify B.J. as an adult for criminal proceedings. The Court found that the Legislature did not create a mandatory rule in NRS 201.230(5) requiring that all minors charged with lewdness with a child be adjudicated only in juvenile court. The Court also concluded that the juvenile court has jurisdiction over B.J. under 201.230(1), but under NRS 62B.390(1)(a), the juvenile court had discretion to certify B.J. for criminal proceedings as an adult because he was charged with offenses that would have been a felony had he been an adult. The Court affirmed the juvenile court’s decision
Andrew Young v. State of Nevada, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (July 20, 2023)
Get PDFOn appeal from a judgment of conviction, the appellant must have made timely objections to preserve the record in order to facilitate appellate review. Additionally, there are three types of juror bias that may lead to the removal of a juror: actual bias, implied bias, and inferable bias. If a juror’s statements establish implied or inferable bias, the juror must be removed regardless of whether that juror subsequently expresses impartiality. By contrast, if a juror’s statements suggest actual bias, the juror can still serve on the jury panel if the district court, after canvassing the juror, determines that they will be impartial despite the bias.
Finally, under the Nevada Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal, the correct wording for an instruction for larceny from the person deems property as taken “from the person of another” if it is in some way actually upon or attached to the person or carried or held in actual physical possession
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. v. Fid. Nat’l, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Oct. 12, 2023)
Get PDFUnder NRS 116.3116, Nevada law designates a portion of an HOA’s lien for assessment obligations as senior to a first deed of trust. When this portion - a “superpriority lien” - is foreclosed upon, it extinguishes the first deed of trust. The Court held that this loss of interest in the property by the first deed of trust holder is not recoverable by making a claim on its title- insurance policy because the superpriority lien came into existence only upon such obligation’s delinquency and, therefore, arose post-policy. Because the enforceability of the lien here fell outside of the coverage of the title insurance policy, the insured could not recover their loss
Work Hierarchies and the Social Control of Workers
Get PDFCreighton Law Review Symposium on Professor Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb’s book, Race Unequals: Overseer Contracts, White Masculinities, and the Formation of Managerial Identity in the Plantation Economy
In re Guardianship of Jones, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (July 6, 2023)
Get PDFA District Court may remove a guardian and appoint a successor without the filing of a formal, written petition. However, the protected person has appellate standing to challenge said removal and appointment. Further, a protected person has a procedural due process right to notice of a District Court’s removal and appointment considerations, but such notice may be met by court filings and court hearings where that consideration is frequently and sufficiently noted. Finally, while the District Court may not shift the burden onto the protected person to file a communication and visitation petition, the Appellant failed to meet their evidentiary burden, meaning no reversible error could found. Therefore, affirmed