13203 research outputs found
Sort by
Deitche Earns Karen Hastie Williams Fellowship
Get PDFLa’Kendra Deitche, a 2L from Fort Wayne, Indiana, has been selected as one of eight—and the only one from outside the Washington, D.C. area—Karen Hastie Williams Leadership Fellows, a prestigious fellowship awarded by the D.C. Bar.
Deitche will complete a leadership orientation session followed by a six-month fellowship, from January through June 2023, on the D.C. Bar’s Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources community. The D.C. Bar offers 20 communities that help members develop expertise in specific practice areas
Regulating Noncompetes Beyond the Common Law: The Uniform Restrictive Employment Agreement Act
Get PDFThe common law has never treated a post-employment noncompete agreement between employer and employee like an ordinary contract. Rather, a court will enforce a noncompete only if it is reasonably tailored in time, geography, and scope of business to further a legitimate employer interest. Suppressing competition is an understandable but not legitimate interest.
While the common-law approach works well enough for some occupations, it is problematic for both workers and employers in many cases. It is a challenge for workers who don’t know about the noncompete until after starting work, for lowwage workers who are unlikely to have trade secrets or star power over customer relationships, and for workers who are uncertain whether the noncompete is enforceable. The vagueness and variation between jurisdictions is also challenging for employers trying to avoid litigation while writing an enforceable noncompete or hiring an experienced worker purportedly subject to a noncompete.
Adding to the complexity are related agreements such as nonsolicitation agreements, confidentiality agreements, payment-for-competition agreements, and training-reimbursement agreements. Some states subject the entire family of agreements to a single framework, but many states use different standards or are silent about these siblings.
In recent years, at least eighteen states have enacted statutes regulating noncompetes more or less comprehensively. This is leading to a cacophony of statutory commands around the hum of the common law. The frustration, complaints, variety, and confusion inspired the Uniform Law Commission in July 2021 to promulgate the Uniform Restrictive Employment Agreement Act to be pushed out to the states for adoption in the upcoming months and years.
The Uniform Restrictive Employment Agreement Act clarifies and codifies the common law by specifying four legitimate employer interests for a noncompete (sale of a business, creation of a business, trade secrets, and customer relationships) and articulating a narrowly tailored standard. The Act adds precision by giving an outer time limit of one year for most agreements. The Act makes four key moves beyond the common law: it prohibits as well as makes unenforceable improper agreements, with statutory damages; it sets maximum restrictive periods, usually one year; it bans noncompetes for low-wage workers; and it requires advance notice for an enforceable agreement.
This Article explains the motivation behind the Uniform Restrictive Employment Agreement Act and ways in which it codifies and clarifies the common law and ways it goes beyond
509 U.S. 630 Supreme Court of the United States Ruth O. SHAW, et al., Appellants v. Janet RENO, Attorney General, et al.
No full textProfessor Fuentes-Rohwer\u27s contribution to this volume is chapter 9 509 U.S. 630 Supreme Court of the United States Ruth O. SHAW, et al., Appellants v. Janet RENO, Attorney General, et al. co-authored by Guy-Uriel Charles.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1293/thumbnail.jp
The Exchange of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Between Saudi Arabia and the United States
Get PDFSaudi Arabians and Americans face challenges when they seek to enforce judgments in each other’s country courts because of the absence of international conventions on recognition and enforcement of foreign country money judgments. The lack of such conventions impacts the aggrieved party interest for businesspeople and individuals from both countries, and no research has been found that discusses an agreement between the two counties on foreign judgments. Therefore, this dissertation focuses on the challenges parties face when they desire to enforce a judgment either in Saudi Arabia or the U.S. The study examines the laws that govern foreign country money judgment recognition and enforcement in Saudi Arabia and the United States, and analyzes the gap between the two countries’ laws on recognition and enforcement of foreign money judgments to find solutions for the challenges that parties face. In addition, this study investigates the possibility of reaching a bilateral agreement between Saudi Arabia and the United States on foreign money judgments enforcement. Filling the gap on this matter is important because the absence of an agreement between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. can create obstacles to reaching a resolution. So, this study will make lawmakers of both countries aware of these obstacles with the hope policymakers will consider the contents of this dissertation when they reach the negotiation stage
The Pathological Whiteness of Prosecution
Get PDFCriminal law scholarship suffers from a Whiteness problem. While scholars appear to be increasingly concerned with the racial disparities within the criminal legal system, the scholarship’s focus tends to be on the marginalized communities and the various discriminatory outcomes they experience as a result of the system. Scholars frequently mention racial bias in the criminal legal system and mass incarceration, the lexical descendent of overcriminalization. However, the scholarship often fails to consider the roles Whiteness and White supremacy play as the underlying logics and norms driving much of the bias in the system.
This Article examines the ways that Whiteness is the norm within the criminal legal system, including within criminal law commentary. It does so by focusing on the burgeoning area of criminal law discourse that examines the role of the prosecutor. In The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law, Professor William Stuntz famously argued that the criminal legal system’s perversions are understood through an examination of the prosecutor. This Article aims to complicate the Stuntzian conception of the almighty prosecutor. It first shows that the prosecutor’s power is bounded by a presumption of punitiveness, challenging the assumption that it is enough to replace the person in the prosecutor’s seat to meaningfully reform the criminal legal system. Second, it demonstrates that the prosecutor’s power stems in part from the Whiteness and maleness of the prototypical prosecutor, exposing Stuntz’s failure to contend with both the experience of non-White and non-male prosecutors and the Whiteness of most prosecutors.
This power can be witnessed through the racialized and sexualized experience of progressive prosecution, wherein White male prosecutors are lauded as progressive heroes and Black women prosecutors are critiqued for not being progressive enough. This Article analyzes the sentiments of online conversations about eight progressive prosecutors to assess how the sentiments differ by race and gender. Its findings reveal how the very foundation of the criminal legal system relies upon a White, male paradigm of punitiveness that is resistant to reform, and that this paradigm has infected even “progressive” discourses about the system. Moreover, the system appears to be rotten to the core, or at least punitive to its core, suggesting that efforts to reform it are futile.
This Article invites liberal commentators who hope to address the excess of incarceration to critically examine the ease with which they critique Black women and valorize White men in the system. It invites liberals to untangle the layers of bias that are pervasive in liberal thought
Mandela Washington Fellows to Visit Baier Hall on July 8
Get PDFA group of 24 young leaders from 18 Sub-Saharan African countries is set to visit the Indiana University Maurer School of Law on July 8 as part of the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders
Russia\u27s Utilization of the Covid-19 Pandemic: Lockdowns, Re-Sovereignization, and Disengagement from the West
No full textThis article discusses the challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic poses to the current concepts of globalization, universality of human rights, and the rules-based international order. This article discusses how Russia has used the COVID-19 pandemic to accelerate its move away from Western ideas and institutions so as to solidify the power of its executive branch. In particular, this article examines the Russian Constitutional Court in its dealings with both the 2020 Russian constitutional amendments and the government\u27s lockdown measures. This article concludes that the Russian Constitutional Court which is supposed to serve as a key guarantor of fundamental rights of citizens against the machinery of the state is becoming increasingly politicized, which threatens the Court\u27s independence. Russia\u27s desire to strengthen the power of the executive branch, to retreat further into traditional notions of sovereignty, and to move away from international norms and institutions, is not unique. The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a powerful catalyst in magnifying and intensifying the existing divisions in the current international order