43674 research outputs found
Sort by
ALEXIE KAMOE, Petitioner/ Appellant v. HONORABLE STEVAN RIDGE, Respondent / Appellee : Replacement Brief of Appellee
Appeal from the Fourth District Court, Utah County, from a Denial of a Rule 65B Petition for Extraordinary Relief, before the Honorable Judge Robert Lunnen, arising from an Order to Stand Trial in the Utah County Justice Court
DOUGLAS J. THOMPSON (12690), Appeals Division, Utah County Public Defender Assoc., Counsel for Appellant
CARL HOLLAN (15164), Deputy County Attorney, DAVID O. LEAVITT (6990), Utah County Attorney, Counsel for Appelle
STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/ Appellee v. JASON RONALD HULSE, Defendant / Appellant : Brief of Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT, BOX ELDER COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, FROM THE JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND COMMITMENT ON ONE COUNT OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A RESTRICTED PERSON, A SECOND-DEGREE FELONY, AND ONE COUNT OF INJURIOUS LITTERING ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LANDS, A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR, ENTERED ON JANUARY 7, 2020, BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE BRANDON J. MAYNARD
SEAN REYES, Utah Attorney General, Appeals Division, Counsel for Appellee
LEAH J. ASTON (15989), Counsel for Appellan
WEST VALLEY CITY, Appellee/Plaintiff, v. CARL BEGNAUD, Appellant/Defendant.
APPEAL FROM CONVICTION AND JUDGMENT FOR RECKLESS ABUSE OF A VULNERABLE ADULT, A CLASS B MISDEMEANOR, AND ASSAULT CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL BODILY INJURY, A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR THE HONORABLE JUDGE KARA PETIT PRESIDING, THIRD DISTRICT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH SALT LAKE DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 181912383
COREY SHERWIN, Bar No. 5711, WEST VALLEY CITY ATTORNEY\u27S OFFICE, Attorney for Plaintiff/ Appellee
STACI VISSER, Bar No. 14358, INTERM0UNT AIN LEGAL, Attorney for Defendant/ Appellan
Reputation Systems Bias in the Platform Workplace
Online reputation systems enable the providers and consumers of a product or service to rate one another and allow others to rely upon those reputation scores in deciding whether to engage with a particular provider or consumer. Reputation systems are an intrinsic feature of the platform workplace, in which a platform operator, such as Uber or TaskRabbit, intermediates between the provider of a service and the consumer of that service. Operators typically rely upon consumer ratings of providers in rewarding and penalizing providers. Thus, these reputation systems allow an operator to achieve enormous scale while maintaining quality control and user trust without employing supervisors to manage the vast number of providers who engage consumers on the operator’s platform. At the same time, an increasing number of commentators have expressed concerns that the invidious biases of raters impact these reputation systems.
This Article considers how best to mitigate reputation systems bias in the platform workplace. After reviewing and rejecting both a hands-off approach and the anti-exceptionalism approach to regulation of the platform economy, this Article argues in favor of applying what the author labels a “structural–purposive” analysis to regulation of reputation systems discrimination in the platform workplace. A structural-purposive analysis seeks to ensure that regulation is informed by the goals and structure of the existing workplace regulation scheme but also is consistent with the inherent characteristics of the platform economy. Thus, this approach facilitates the screening out of proposed regulation that would be inimical to the inherent characteristics of the platform economy and aids in the framing of regulatory proposals that would leverage those characteristics. This Article then demonstrates the merits of a structural–purposive approach in the context of a regulatory framework addressing reputation systems discrimination in the platform workplace. Applying this approach, the Article derives several principles that should guide regulatory efforts to ameliorate the prevalence and effects of reputation systems bias in the platform workplace and outlines a proposed regulatory framework grounded in those principles