8353 research outputs found
Sort by
Indirect Reports in the Interpretation of Contracts and Statutes: A Gricean Theory of Coordination and Common Knowledge
No full textVol. 36, No. 4
Get PDFWhich ULP is It?: An Examination of Retaliation under Sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(2) of the Illinois Public Relations Act by Helen J. Kim
Recent Developmentshttps://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/iperr/1111/thumbnail.jp
Age, Time, and Discrimination (Forthcoming)
No full textDiscrimination scholars have traditionally justified antidiscrimination laws by appealing to the value of equality. Egalitarian theories locate the moral wrong of discrimination in the unfavorable treatment one individual receives as compared to another. However, discrimination theory has neglected to engage seriously with the socio-legal category of age, which poses a challenge to this egalitarian consensus due to its unique temporal character. Unlike other identity categories, an individual’s age inevitably changes over time. Consequently, any age-based legal rule or private discrimination will ultimately yield equal treatment over the lifecourse. This explains the weak constitutional protection for age and the fact that age-based legal rules are commonplace, determining everything from access to health care to criminal sentences to voting rights. The central claim of this Article is that equality can neither adequately describe the moral wrong of age discrimination nor justify the current landscape of statutory age discrimination law. The wrong of age discrimination lies not in a comparison, but instead in the deprivation of some intrinsic interest that extends throughout the lifecourse. Thus, we must turn to non-comparative values, such as liberty or dignity, to flesh out the theoretical foundation of age discrimination law. Exploring this alternative normative foundation generates valuable insights for current debates in discrimination theory and the legal regulation of age
Chasing Title IX: Examining the Circular Effects of Title IX from an Unpopular Perspective
Get PDFThe rise in sexual misconduct awareness campaigns, particularly on college campuses, has brought a traditionally-taboo subject to the fore of national discourse. Accordingly, the federal government has required public institutions of higher education to respond aggressively to accusations of sexual misconduct by expanding the reach of Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination and relaxing adjudicative procedures. To enforce these changes, the U.S. Department of Education threatened to withdraw federal funding from institutions that failed to comply with its mandates after engaging in public investigations, therefore resulting in financial and reputational ruin. This aggressive practice has resulted in a systematic and nationwide disregard for a significant, yet underappreciated, group of students: students accused of that misconduct. The Seventh Circuit recently joined a growing, albeit still small, trend toward recognizing the devastating effects of these Title IX practices in Doe v. Purdue University. There, the court properly recognized that Title IX’s aggressive approach to adjudicating sexual misconduct cases on college and university campuses poses grave constitutional and statutory concerns. Specifically, the procedures that Purdue University implemented to find a male student responsible for sexual misconduct failed to protect the rights of the accused student. The impact on the accused male student, according to the court, is significant and problematic; he is often deprived of his education, and perhaps his future endeavors, without the process to which he is constitutionally and statutorily due. But the Seventh Circuit should have gone further. Recognizing that Purdue’s particular response to sexual misconduct allegations could have violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX, the court stopped well short of addressing the broader issue: whether the federal government’s financial incentive to conform educational institutions’ policies to ones that target male students itself violates Title IX. This Comment discusses why the federal government effectively put a gun to the head of every covered school and violated Title IX by threatening to pull the trigger unless schools discriminated against male students in sexual misconduct proceedings
Vol. 36, No. 2
Get PDFLabor Relations Collaboration from Start to Finish: A Case Study on a First Contract for Westminster Colorado Firefighters, by Lisa R. Callaway and Rebecca C. Barnard
Recent Developmentshttps://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/iperr/1109/thumbnail.jp