7078 research outputs found
Sort by
Redressing the Eurocentric Approach of the Court of Arbitration for Sports to Human Rights Law
Get PDFFairness or Equality? Participation of Esports Players with Disabilities in Esports Competition
Get PDFWhere to Turn? The Lack of Anti-Discriminatory Hiring Policies to Protect Minority Coaches in Collegiate Athletics
Get PDFA Questionable Categorization — Trademark\u27s Struggle to Protect Tribal Cultural Property
Get PDFNon
Safeguarding Silence: The Weaponization of Nondisclosure Agreements and the Need for More Regulation
Get PDFWith the surge of the #MeToo movement, the weaponization of Nondisclosure agreements in cases of sexual assault and harassment has been brought to the forefront. This comment discusses the use and laws of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment, highlighting their role in silencing victims and shielding perpetrators from accountability and underscores the broader implications of NDAs in perpetuating a culture of silence. Emphasizing the prevalence of NDAs, this comment scrutinizes their misuse and explores the historical context, highlighting the intertwining of #MeToo movement and NDAs.
This comment compares State responses, exemplified by Washington, California, New Jersey, and Oregon, and how they showcase varied approaches to regulate NDAs. Federal initiatives, like the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the Speak Out Act, are examined, revealing limitations in curbing NDA’s misuse. The comment suggests that a more comprehensive regulatory framework at both state and federal levels regarding the use and enforcement of Nondisclosure agreements may be required to regulate this area of law
Benefits Transparency
Get PDFRecently, several states and cities have enacted equal pay laws in a push for pay transparency in job postings to inform and help reduce wage gaps. Some of these laws also require a description of the employee benefits that the company offers. However, none of these laws require a detailed description of said benefits, even though employee benefits on average make up 24% of an employee’s compensation.
Businesses can choose how much to disclose with respect to their benefits and they may even engage in what this author calls “benefits washing”—a practice where companies provide vague or misleading information about their employee benefits. This discretion is problematic. Workers make decisions on where to apply and where to work based on information obtained on the internet, such as company websites. But these company disclosures do not divulge enough information to properly value the benefits. For example, many people do not understand that 401(k) plan features differ significantly across employers.
Mandatory detailed, succinct disclosure of employee benefits—specifically 401(k) plan benefits—is a public necessity as these benefits are exceedingly complex. Myriad stakeholders—employees, jobseekers, consumers, investors, and companies—would find more detailed, understandable disclosure of interest. For example, some consumers and investors—including ethical consumers and ESG investors—seek to align their purchases and investments with companies that treat their employees fairly. Additionally, people do not have enough saved for retirement, which not only poses a problem for them but also for taxpayers. And requiring companies to disclose their vesting schedules and other plan features will help companies better assess their own benefits and perhaps nudge or shame them into providing more favorable benefits. One would also hope that the prevalence of such detailed disclosure would help to normalize the value of retirement saving to all stakeholders.
We must not capitulate to the legal fantasy that companies will provide detailed and accurate information willingly, even if it may help the companies themselves. As such, this author calls on the government to mandate benefits transparency.
This Article contends that benefits transparency is essential particularly with respect to complex benefits like 401(k) plan benefits. Governmental regulation mandating detailed disclosure where stakeholders expect to see it is necessary to bring such transparency to fruition in an organized, comparable manner. This could be accomplished by state and local governments in their equal pay/pay transparency laws, or federally through Department of Labor rulemaking or an amendment to ERISA. The SEC and FASB could also require such disclosure for all publicly traded companies. So long as there are enforcement and penalties with teeth, we could see vital benefits transparency take hold
Reform and Removal at the Federal Reserve: Independence, Accountability, and the Separation of Powers in U.S. Central Banking
Get PDFSeparation of powers issues concerning the Federal Reserve System have generated intense debate. Controversy has been acute regarding the system’s provision of for-cause protection from presidential removal for members of the Board of Governors and the absence of the gold standard of presidential appointment or Senate advice and consent for other key officers. This debate has gained traction from the Supreme Court’s recent decisions finding constitutional flaws with removal protections in federal agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and with procedures for appointing and supervising other federal officials.
This Article turns to a novel approach that assesses past practice and agency costs. The Article draws a distinction between incremental movement, which can waffle between extremes, and watershed moments, which herald a sea change. The Article argues that the Constitution grants agency to both Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause and the President under the Take Care Clause and Vesting Clause. Citing recent scholarship on the ambiguity in the First Congress’s legislation on the removal power in 1789, the Article classifies that legislation as an incremental movement, not the watershed that champions of a broad removal power have claimed.
Citing Congress’s interest in reducing agency costs, the Article argues that Congress can enact narrowly tailored restrictions on presidential removal of senior cabinet officials that are confined to particular domains, supported by specific findings, and subject to tight sunsets. This approach would sanction a variant of the Reconstruction Congress’s Tenure in Office Act, which sought to curtail President Andrew Johnson’s effort to undermine the Reconstruction program.
The Article also argues that the Framers envisioned independence in public-debt regulation to insulate officers from political pressure to increase the money supply. This premise supports the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. However, the Article also argues that inadequate supervision of Reserve Bank presidents who sit on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), revealed in two recent episodes of inappropriate trading activity, shows the need for presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of these key participants in the Federal Reserve’s deliberations
