8353 research outputs found
Sort by
The International Criminal Court in Africa: Impartiality, Politics, Complementarity and Brexit
No full textI have known and been inspired by Henry J. Richardson III and his scholarship for many years. A hallmark of his work has been his focus upon African-American interests in international law and also upon the rights and interests of African states. In acknowledgement of that intellectual debt, it is my honor to dedicate the following article to this festschrift celebrating his life and work
\u3ci\u3eLewis\u3c/i\u3e\u27s Shifting \u3ci\u3eConcepcion\u3c/i\u3es: The Seventh Circuit\u27s Struggle in Applying Class Action Preemption in Employment Contracts
Get PDFClass actions and arbitrations have has existed since the United States\u27 nascence. Since the mid-twentieth century, both Congress, through statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), and the Supreme Court, in interpreting such statutes as favoring arbitration, have fostered arbitration\u27s growth. While businesses incorporated arbitration provisions into various contracts thinking they would arbitrate with claimants individually, plaintiffs\u27 attorneys pushed for courts\u27 allowance of class arbitration, a class proceeding conducted within an arbitration\u27s confines. Corporations litigated class arbitrations\u27 legitimacy; their efforts culminated in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, where a divided Supreme Court upheld individual arbitration provisions in a pre-dispute contract, and foreclosed class arbitrations in many contexts. Even though Italian Colors\u27 plaintiffs could not functionally pursue their claims individually, the Court found that certain statutes interpreted as allowing class arbitration could not steamroll over other laws like the FAA.
Now, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. seeks to distinguish itself from Italian Colors. In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit opined that the National Labor Relations Act-which expressly grants employees a right to collective suits-qualified as an exception to Italian Colors and to the FAA\u27s enforcement of arbitration provisions. Per the FAA\u27s savings clause, anything that proscribed such an express right was unenforceable. Lewis splits the circuits on this issue, and introduces an opportunity for Supreme Court resolution. This Note assesses the arguments advanced by various groups invested in Lewis\u27s issues, and urges the Court to uphold Lewis\u27s interpretation of the FAA over other Circuits\u27 competing analyses. It is this Note\u27s goal to highlight to its audience that, if the Supreme Court overturns Lewis\u27s holding, the class action mechanism, alongside individuals\u27 access to courts for civil harms, will continue its march toward extinction.
Class actions and arbitrations have has existed since the United States\u27 nascence. Since the mid-twentieth century, both Congress, through statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), and the Supreme Court, in interpreting such statutes as favoring arbitration, have fostered arbitration\u27s growth. While businesses incorporated arbitration provisions into various contracts thinking they would arbitrate with claimants individually, plaintiffs\u27 attorneys pushed for courts\u27 allowance of class arbitration, a class proceeding conducted within an arbitration\u27s confines. Corporations litigated class arbitrations\u27 legitimacy; their efforts culminated in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, where a divided Supreme Court upheld individual arbitration provisions in a pre-dispute contract, and foreclosed class arbitrations in many contexts. Even though Italian Colors\u27 plaintiffs could not functionally pursue their claims individually, the Court found that certain statutes interpreted as allowing class arbitration could not steamroll over other laws like the FAA.
Now, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. seeks to distinguish itself from Italian Colors. In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit opined that the National Labor Relations Act-which expressly grants employees a right to collective suits-qualified as an exception to Italian Colors and to the FAA\u27s enforcement of arbitration provisions. Per the FAA\u27s savings clause, anything that proscribed such an express right was unenforceable. Lewis splits the circuits on this issue, and introduces an opportunity for Supreme Court resolution. This Note assesses the arguments advanced by various groups invested in Lewis\u27s issues, and urges the Court to uphold Lewis\u27s interpretation of the FAA over other Circuits\u27 competing analyses. It is this Note\u27s goal to highlight to its audience that, if the Supreme Court overturns Lewis\u27s holding, the class action mechanism, alongside individuals\u27 access to courts for civil harms, will continue its march toward extinction.
Class actions and arbitrations have has existed since the United States\u27 nascence. Since the mid-twentieth century, both Congress, through statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), and the Supreme Court, in interpreting such statutes as favoring arbitration, have fostered arbitration\u27s growth. While businesses incorporated arbitration provisions into various contracts thinking they would arbitrate with claimants individually, plaintiffs\u27 attorneys pushed for courts\u27 allowance of class arbitration, a class proceeding conducted within an arbitration\u27s confines. Corporations litigated class arbitrations\u27 legitimacy; their efforts culminated in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, where a divided Supreme Court upheld individual arbitration provisions in a pre-dispute contract, and foreclosed class arbitrations in many contexts. Even though Italian Colors\u27 plaintiffs could not functionally pursue their claims individually, the Court found that certain statutes interpreted as allowing class arbitration could not steamroll over other laws like the FAA.
Now, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. seeks to distinguish itself from Italian Colors. In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit opined that the National Labor Relations Act-which expressly grants employees a right to collective suits-qualified as an exception to Italian Colors and to the FAA\u27s enforcement of arbitration provisions. Per the FAA\u27s savings clause, anything that proscribed such an express right was unenforceable. Lewis splits the circuits on this issue, and introduces an opportunity for Supreme Court resolution. This Note assesses the arguments advanced by various groups invested in Lewis\u27s issues, and urges the Court to uphold Lewis\u27s interpretation of the FAA over other Circuits\u27 competing analyses. It is this Note\u27s goal to highlight to its audience that, if the Supreme Court overturns Lewis\u27s holding, the class action mechanism, alongside individuals\u27 access to courts for civil harms, will continue its march toward extinction
Blood Antiquities: Preserving Syria’s Heritage
Get PDFThe recent large-scale looting of archaeological sites across Syria at the hands of ISIS has brought the devastating effects of the illegal international antiquities market into stark relief. Not only are these illicit excavations irreparably destroying human history, they also enable ISIS to sell Syria’s cultural property to fund their jihad. This note examines the international and domestic laws that regulate this illicit antiquities trade. This note further identifies that, while these laws provide a meaningful legal framework, their ineffective implementation prevents them from effectively regulating the illicit antiquities market. Without effective market regulation, buyers in art market countries will continue to purchase the illicit Syrian antiquities that fund terrorist organizations, which will further incentivize the clandestine market. As the world’s leading antiquities markets, the United States is responsible to effectively implement the governing law. This Note proposes two ways to accomplish this. First, U.S. customs officers must use innovative technology such as soil analysis to identify illicit cultural property at the U.S. border, preventing its import. Second, amending the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to include cultural property crimes will facilitate the successful prosecution of entire trafficking networks and deter participation in the market. These steps are necessary to preserve the world’s heritage for generations to come
Uber Drivers: A Disputed Employment Relationship in Light of the Sharing Economy
Get PDFRide-sharing companies such as Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”) have revolutionized the ride-sharing industry. In the realm of employment classification, Uber has a substantial financial motivation to classify its drivers as independent contractors because it frees Uber from financing workers’ compensation programs, payroll taxes, and employee benefit programs. Others argue that Uber should not be able to escape such direct liabilities. In light of this ongoing debate, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has recently denied Uber’s class-action settlement agreement, thereby preserving the issue of whether Uber drivers should be classified as employees or independent contractors. Federal courts have traditionally decided employment relationships by applying one of three factor-based tests: the right-to-control test, the economic realities test, and the entrepreneurial opportunities test. My Note first applies each employment classification test to Uber drivers, and subsequently evaluates the competing arguments for employee and independent contractor statuses. The Note’s final section explains why Uber drivers should be classified as independent contractors under a slightly modified economic realities test
Is the Supreme Court Concerned with Patent Law, the Federal Circuit, or Both: A Response to Judge Timothy B. Dyk
Get PDFThis essay is a response to Hon. Timothy B. Dyk, Thoughts on the Relationship Between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, 16 CHI.-KENT J. OF INTELL. PROP. 67 (2016). In it, I address the reasons for the Supreme Court\u27s engagement with patent law. In other words, is the Court interested in patent law itself, or is there something about the Federal Circuit as an institution that has garnered the Court\u27s gaze. I conclude it is a combination of the two. The Court is concerned with certain aspects of patent doctrine, but it is also concerned with the Federal Circuit, particularly its penchant for bright-line rules. The essay also addresses interesting dynamics in the Supreme Court\u27s patent cases, such as the pairings of certain cases, where the Court addresses the Federal Circuit\u27s interpretation of an earlier case. Overall, I view the Court\u27s recent interventions as a mixed bag. Some have been successful -- such as the rejection of the strict teaching-suggestion-motivation to combine test in the obviousness context. Others, such as its foray into patentable subject matter, have gone off the rails. Regardless, the Supreme Court is likely to remain engaged with patent law for the foreseeable future
BookIT IP Series - Federal Trade Commission Privacy Law and Policy
No full textThe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was established in 1914 to prevent unfair competition in commerce. Since that time, the FTC has been given greater authority to police anticompetitive practices. It has evolved into the most important regulator of information policy and now regulates our technological future. Unfortunately, the agency is often poorly understood. In his book Federal Trade Commission Privacy Law and Policy, Professor Hoofnagle will redress this confusion by explaining how the FTC arrived at its current position of power. He will offer practical tips for lawyers, legal academics, political scientists, historians, and those interested in obtaining a better understanding of the FTC’s privacy activities and how they fit in the context of the agency’s mission to protect consumers. He also will give a few thoughts on what to expect under the Trump Administration and the FTC.
Professor Hoofnagle is an adjunct professor at UC Berkeley School of Law and the School of Information, where he is resident. He teaches computer crime law, internet law, information privacy law, and seminars on the Federal Trade Commission an education technology. Professor Hoofnagle has written in the areas of information privacy, the law of unfair and deceptive practices, consumer law, and identity theft. He is licensed to practice in California and Washington, D.C., and serves as of counsel to Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP.
The BookIT IP Series is jointly sponsored by Chicago-Kent’s Intellectual Property Program and Center for Empirical Studies in Intellectual Property.
Runtime: 00:50:5