9571 research outputs found
Sort by
AgChain: Deploying a Public Utility Blockchain to Unveil the Missing Links Between Food Origin and Destination
Get PDFThe Auditing Imperative for Automated Hiring
Get PDFThe high bar of proof to demonstrate either a disparate treatment or disparate impact cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, coupled with the “black box” nature of many automated hiring systems, renders the detection and redress of bias in such algorithmic systems difficult. This Article, with contributions at the intersection of administrative law, employment & labor law, and law & technology, makes the central claim that the automation of hiring both facilitates and obfuscates employment discrimination. That phenomenon and the deployment of intellectual property law as a shield against the scrutiny of automated systems combine to form an insurmountable obstacle for disparate impact claimants.To ensure against the identified “bias in, bias out” phenomenon associated with automated decision-making, I argue that the employer’s affirmative duty of care as posited by other legal scholars creates “an auditing imperative” for algorithmic hiring systems. This auditing imperative mandates both internal and external audits of automated hiring systems, as well as record-keeping initiatives for job applications. Such audit requirements have precedent in other areas of law, as they are not dissimilar to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) audits in labor law or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act audit requirements in securities law.I also propose that employers that have subjected their automated hiring platforms to external audits could receive a certification mark, “the Fair Automated Hiring Mark,” which would serve to positively distinguish them in the labor market. Labor law mechanisms such as collective bargaining could be an effective approach to combating the bias in automated hiring by establishing criteria for the data deployed in automated employment decision-making and creating standards for the protection and portability of said data. The Article concludes by noting that automated hiring, which captures a vast array of applicant data, merits greater legal oversight given the potential for “algorithmic blackballing,” a phenomenon that could continue to thwart many applicants’ future job bids
Law in the Shadows of Confederate Monuments
Get PDFHundreds of Confederate monuments stand across the United States. In recent years, leading historians have come forward to clarify that these statues were erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct. As public support for antiracist action grows, many communities are inclined to remove public symbols that cause emotional harm, create constant security risks and dishonor the values of equality and unity. Finding a lawful path to removal is not always clear and easy. The political power brokers who choose whether monuments will stay or go often do not walk daily in their shadows. In recent years, eight Southern state legislatures enacted monument preservation legislation designed to thwart local removal efforts. These laws have prompted bitter conflicts, sometimes leading angry citizens to topple massive stone or bronze monuments themselves. The challenges present fertile ground for innovative lawyering. Creative applications of state property, nuisance and contract laws have led to removals notwithstanding the prohibitions of state preservation laws.
When state law blocks removal or contextualization, communities may look to federal law as a source for taking antiracist action. First Amendment doctrine governing expressive speech has not provided a fruitful solution. Despite the expressive nature of Confederate monuments, efforts to weaponize the First Amendment by both sides of the monument debate have failed, largely due to the government speech doctrine. Given the age and quality of most monuments, copyright law is also not likely to provide an effective federal claim.
The Federal Civil Rights Act offers an untapped but promising foundation for resolving these controversies. Title VI and Title VII could be used to challenge monuments that contribute to a hostile work or educational environment. Federal civil rights claims would supersede state legislation enacted to prevent removal of racially hostile symbols. Even when state law does not present removal barriers, communities who seek to take meaningful anti-racist action could ground their initiatives in the Civil Rights Act’s core value of equality. For all who are confronting this issue, this Article seeks to provide a legal and strategic framework for acknowledging history while reclaiming the symbolic heart of our public spaces and a means to assure that the symbols we elevate affirm shared contemporary values
When Therapy Goes Public: Copyright Gatekeepers and Sharing Therapeutic Artifacts on Social Media
Get PDFPower Sector Carbon Reduction: An Evaluation of Policies for North
Get PDFThe North Carolina power sector is poised for transition. Economics have driven big changes on the grid, making cleaner options for electricity generation cost competitive with traditional resources. North Carolina clean energy policies have further enabled the shift into renewable resources. Building on this momentum, Duke Energy Corporation and our state’s rural electric cooperatives have set ambitious climate goals, including “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050.
Well-designed policies can accelerate pollution reduction, make change more affordable for state residents and business, and stimulate job growth. For this reason, the North Carolina Clean Energy Plan (CEP)—developed pursuant to Governor Cooper’s Executive Order No. 80— recommended the year-long study of carbon reduction policies for the power sector (Recommendation A1). The Duke University Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions (Duke Nicholas Institute) and the University of North Carolina’s Center for Climate, Energy, Environment, and Economics (UNC CE3) jointly conducted the study. This report reflects extensive modeling, policy and economic analysis, and stakeholder engagement. It does not make specific recommendations but evaluates different policies and offers options for decarbonizing the grid.
The CEP sets two emissions targets for the electricity used in North Carolina: a 70% reduction in 2005 CO2 emissions levels by 2030, and carbon neutrality by 2050. These targets include emissions from in-state electricity generation and electricity imports
Regulate Me Online? Regulate Me Not?: A Forum-Based Analysis Examining the Government\u27s Ability to Regulate Constituents Online
Get PDF
