9571 research outputs found
Sort by
The Department of Defense is Poised to Update Its Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap to Consider Mitigation Measures : Now is the Time to Nationally Regulate Solar Radiation Management
Get PDFLaw Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition: Bias, Disparate Impacts to People of Color, and the Need for Federal Legislation
Get PDF
Progress Towards the New International Legal Framework for Protecting Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
Get PDF
Nickels and Dimes? Rethinking the Imposition of Special Assessment Fees on Indigent Defendants
Get PDF
An Auditing Imperative for Automated Hiring
Get PDFThe goal of this Article is neither to argue against or for the use of automated decision-making in employment, nor is it to examine whether automated hiring systems are better than humans at making hiring decisions. For antidiscrimination law, the efficacy of any particular hiring system is a secondary concern to ensuring that any such system does not unlawfully discriminate against protected categories. Therefore, the aim is to suggest collaborative regulatory regimes for automated hiring systems that will ensure that any benefits of automated hiring are not negated by (un)intended outcomes, such as unlawful discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics
Enforcing Inbound Forum Selection Clauses in State Court
Get PDFA forum selection clause is a contractual provision that selects a court for future disputes. Such clauses serve two primary functions. First, they may be used to redirect litigation from one state to another (an “outbound” clause). Second, they may be used to extend the personal jurisdiction of the chosen court over the contracting parties (an “inbound” clause). To date, scholars have focused most of their attention on the redirecting function played by outbound clauses. In this Article, we provide a definitive account of the role played by inbound clauses as means of obtaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.
This account is based on our review of 283 published and unpublished state court cases where the defendant challenged the enforceability of an inbound forum selection clause. We show that state courts currently enforce inbound clauses in the overwhelming majority of cases. They enforce them in consumer contracts of adhesion. They enforce them where the identity of the chosen jurisdiction is not clearly spelled out. And they enforce them when the chosen forum is extremely inconvenient. The end result is a legal regime where distant courts routinely assert personal jurisdiction over weaker contracting parties on the basis of inbound forum selection clauses.
This state of affairs is inequitable and unjust. To remedy the situation, this Article advances several proposals to reform the existing law in this area. First, we argue that courts should not enforce inbound clauses against unsophisticated actors in contracts of adhesion. Second, we argue that courts should not enforce these clauses when there is no way for the defendant to identify the chosen jurisdiction at the time of signing. Lastly, we argue that courts should not enforce these clauses when the chosen court is not in a reasonably convenient location