3722 research outputs found
Sort by
Amazon.com and the NLRB: Privacy Rights, Home Visits and Beyond
No full textIn the important November 2024 case of Amazon.com Services LLC, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) held employer “captive audience speeches” to be per se unlawful. The NLRB held that employer anti-union speeches of this kind, delivered on paid company time on company premises and which employees are required to attend, unlawfully intruded on employee privacy and autonomy. This Article critiques the NLRB’s recent Amazon.com decision from various perspectives. First, the NLRB, in its ruling, appears to ignore decades-long precedent in this area of the law, precedent that firmly upheld the “free speech” rights of employers to give speeches of this kind, so long as such speeches are not explicitly threatening or coercive in nature. Second, the NLRB ignored the clear tradeoff made in earlier precedents which allow employers to make at-work speeches of this kind so long as labor unions are permitted the offsetting right to campaign by visiting employees at their homes while employers are prohibited from this activity, i.e., the “Home Visits Doctrine.” This Article argues that any alteration of employer captive audience speech rights necessitates the concomitant revisitation of the Home Visits Doctrine, which it argues is outdated and also involves significant infringements on employee privacy and autonomy rights. The Article then concludes with various recommendations for reform, some drawn from the proposed Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 passed by the then-Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in March of 2021
Bridging the Expectations GAAP in Financial Reporting
No full textThe true nature of auditing publicly traded companies’ financial statements has been somewhat of an enigma to the general public. Due to this mystery, an “expectations gap” has formed between the public expectations of auditors’ roles and what the auditor actually does in their analysis of financial statements. Auditors are an extremely important piece of the financial reporting puzzle because they determine whether or not a company’s financial statements are a fair and accurate reflection of the company’s financial position, a determination that can be a major influence on how the financial strength of a company is perceived. Newman’s Article explains how, despite public perception, auditors only test small amounts of the financial data of a company. Due to the principle-based design of the auditing standards, auditors are given flexibility in their analysis that leads to reviewing small amounts of information. Thus, the standards provide an opportunity for both complicit audit and financial fraud to occur simultaneously. By detailing what auditors are doing on a daily basis, as well as explaining the auditing standards, Newman allows the reader to have a front row seat in the world of audit and urges investors to familiarize themselves with its limitations
Beyond Mass Deportation
No full textDonald Trump’s threats to carry out the mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants helped propel him to a second term as President of the United States. For the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. without lawful status, those threats have increased fears of forced returns to their countries of origin. While American immigration law is heavily focused on the legal processes leading to deportation, little attention has been paid to the post-deportation experiences of individuals who must reintegrate into their home countries. This gap in understanding is especially alarming given the high stakes of reintegration. A successful transition can empower deported individuals to lead economically and socially stable lives, while a failed reintegration may result in homelessness, vulnerability to violence, mental health struggles, and attempts at illegal reentry.
Our project fills this gap. Over four years, our interdisciplinary team interviewed more than 300 Mexican citizens who had been deported (or returned on their own), asking about their economic, social, and cultural reintegration and what advice they would offer to others returning to Mexico. Based on these interviews and interviews with governmental and non-governmental organizations on both sides of the border, we offer specific policy interventions in the areas of deportation, documentation, services, and immigration reform, to facilitate the successful reintegration of returning Mexican citizens. For example, the Mexican Government should use its mobile consulate services to work with their citizens much earlier in the return process—e.g., in federal prisons and at American community centers and schools—to procure the Mexican identification card that is needed to work, rent housing, and obtain services. Our recommendations are bi-national and focus on the role that lawyers, law schools, and law clinics can play in stimulating conversations and action in legal circles on these important reintegration issues
Lawyers\u27 Client-Inclusive Negotiations: The New Mediation ?
No full textWhen proponents initially urged the courts to institutionalize mediation for the resolution of general civil cases, they argued that the procedure would be superior to trial—and also to lawyers’ settlement negotiations—in terms of parties’ exercise of self-determination, satisfaction with outcomes, and opportunity for voice. These claims, however, rested on certain assumptions, particularly regarding the implementation of mediation and lawyers’ settlement negotiations. In mediation, the parties were to take center stage, with the mediator assisting them by facilitating their communication and negotiation so that they could reach a customized resolution. Lawyers’ settlement negotiations in general civil litigation, meanwhile, were assumed to be lawyeronly affairs that excluded the clients. Since then, scholars and other observers have often written about how much mediation has evolved. In the contemporary legal landscape, one of the models used frequently in the courts (and by private providers as well) is an evaluative, lawyer-and-caucus-dominated procedure. The evolution of lawyers’ practice in settlement negotiations has not received commensurate attention. Data has begun to suggest, however, that a substantial percentage of these negotiations may include the clients. We propose that this “client-inclusive” approach to lawyers’ settlement negotiations might outperform—or at least match the performance of—the lawyer-dominated evaluative model of mediation, using many of the same criteria initially used to promote mediation. Paradoxically, just as arbitration has evolved into the “new litigation” and mediation has become the “new arbitration,” lawyers’ client-inclusive negotiations could represent the “new mediation.” If this is so, courts should also evolve by considering the use of “client-inclusive” negotiations to satisfy judicial orders to participate in mediation and law schools should prepare students to competently implement this procedure
Chimeric Contacts and Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure
No full textTwo recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case-Ford Motor Company v. Montana-reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case-Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company-was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff\u27s limited territorial model. Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners the Supreme Court has created or passively allowed. This Article examines the larger history of corporate presence and amenability, then explains the two cases in the milieu of the larger jurisdictional paradigm, highlighting the warp they create for specific and general jurisdiction. The Conclusion summarizes various defense arguments inherent in the Court\u27s reasoning, although the availability of these defenses does not validate these unfortunate rulings
Dia De Los Muertos 2025 Display 03
No full textClose-up of the Ofrenda on the display honoring the Day of the Dead.https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/los-muertos-2025-photos/1002/thumbnail.jp
Pro Bono Week Oct 2025 Book Display 18
No full textClose-up shot of a few books in display for National Pro Bono Week in the law library October 2025.https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/pro-bono-week-2025-photos/1018/thumbnail.jp
Competition in the Global Law Market: Offshore Development of the Statutory Rule in Hastings-Bass
No full textThis Article examines the competitive dynamics in the global law market through the lens of the statutory evolution of the Rule in Hastings-Bass across various International Financial Centers (IFCs). Following the UK Supreme Court\u27s 2013 decision in Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter, which significantly restricted the judiciary\u27s ability to void trustee decisions under the Rule, seven IFCs (Jersey, Bermuda, The Bahamas, the Dubai International Financial Center, the Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands) enacted statutes to preserve and clarify the Rule within their jurisdictions. These legislative actions highlight the strategic adaptations by IFCs to enhance their legal frameworks and maintain a competitive edge in providing sophisticated trust services. By codifying the Rule, these jurisdictions have addressed key criticisms of the common law version, ensuring greater certainty, flexibility, and protection for trust beneficiaries. The Article argues that this evolution exemplifies the positive role of jurisdictional competition in improving legal services and facilitating international financial transactions, thereby contributing to the global economy
Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Licensing
No full textIn this thoroughly revised and expanded second edition of an acclaimed Handbook, leading experts explore the multiple facets of IP licensing law from a global and comparative perspective
Insights from a Dispute Resolution Empiricist: Preparation, Fairness, and Party Empowerment in Mediation
No full textThis article presents original empirical research on mediation from the early 2000s in nine Ohio courts, comparing findings with prior studies on civil mediation in state and federal courts. It examines key aspects such as participant assessments, session outcomes, and the impact on case resolution time and costs. Additionally, the article explores how case characteristics, party dynamics, and program design contribute to mediation success. Given the limited attention these factors have received in previous research, it provides valuable insights into their role in shaping mediation outcomes. The findings also highlight ongoing methodological challenges in mediation research, including inconsistencies across studies and the need for more rigorous, systematic approaches. Ultimately, the article calls for future research that incorporates controlled studies with random case assignments, longitudinal data collection, and detailed observations of both mediation and traditional litigation processes. By refining research methodologies, scholars and policymakers can better assess mediation’s effectiveness and optimize program design to enhance dispute resolution in civil cases