Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Melnick, “The Transformation of Title IX”

Not seen yet, but promises to be an important read: R. Shep Melnick’s “The Transformation of Title IX: Regulating Gender Equality in Education” Publisher’s blurb:

Few laws have had such far-reaching impact as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Intended to give girls and women greater access to sports programs and other courses of study in schools and colleges, the law has since been used by judges and agencies to expand a wide range of antidiscrimination policies – most recently the Obama administration’s 2016 mandates on sexual harassment and transgender rights.

In this comprehensive review of how Title IX has been implemented, Boston College political science professor R. Shep Melnick analyzes how interpretations of “equal educational opportunity” have changed over the years. In terms accessible to non-lawyers, Melnick examines how Title IX has become a central part of legal and political campaigns to correct gender stereotypes, not only in academic settings but in society at large. Title IX thus has become a major factor in America’s culture wars – and almost certainly will remain so for years to come.

Related: “23 Cornell Law Profs support suspended male student in Title IX court appeal” [William Jacobson, Legal Insurrection]

Filed under:

Labor and employment roundup

Filed under: , , , ,

“Impenetrable legalese” and the push to regulate

The lead anecdote in a Bloomberg story on the evils of tech fine print is on PayPal deleting the accounts of persons who joined before age 18. Yet on its own internal evidence, this seemingly irrational action is pretty clearly a response to the risk of liability/regulatory exposures rather than some act of random malice. How many more instances of pointless runaround or “impenetrable legalese” are going to be occasioned by the ongoing push to regulate and assign new liability to data-intensive businesses? [Nate Lanxon, Bloomberg]

Filed under: , ,

“The buffet had 35 full-time employees–all of whom, incidentally, have lost their jobs as a result of this lawsuit.”

A church outside Akron, Ohio, ran a cafeteria open to the public in which much of the labor was provided free by volunteer members of the congregation. The U.S. Department of Labor sued it on the grounds that it violates the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for an enterprise, church or otherwise, to use volunteer unpaid labor in a commercial setting. A trial court agreed, but now the Sixth Circuit has reversed and remanded, pointing out that “to be considered an employee within the meaning of the FLSA, a worker must first expect to receive compensation.”

Judge Raymond Kethledge, writing in concurrence, takes issue with the Department of Labor’s argument that the cafeteria volunteers count as employees because “their pastor spiritually ‘coerced’ them to work there. That argument’s premise — namely, that the Labor Act authorizes the Department to regulate the spiritual dialogue between pastor and congregation — assumes a power whose use would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.” Kethledge also points out that as “the record makes clear, the Buffet’s purpose was to allow the church’s members to proselytize among local residents who dined there,” and that along with its congregant volunteers the establishment “had 35 full-time paid employees — all of whom, incidentally, have lost their jobs as a result of this lawsuit.” [Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet et al. via Ted Frank on Twitter]

More: cross-posted, slightly expanded, at Cato.

Filed under: , ,

Penn State cracks down on student outdoors clubs

“Penn State recently decreed that three student-led outdoor adventure groups—the hiking club, the cave exploration club, and the scuba club—would have to disband due to safety liability concerns, even though none of the long-running clubs had ever reported a problem.” In the case of hiking, a “key issue for administrators was that the Outing Club frequently visit locations with poor cell phone coverage.” [Lenore Skenazy and Robby Soave, Reason]

Filed under: , , ,

April 25 roundup

  • New suits claim lack of web accessibility features in online employment applications violates California’s ADA equivalent law [Kristina M. Launey & Myra Villamor, Seyfarth Shaw]
  • Sugar in candy? Who knew? [John O’Brien and John Breslin, Legal Newsline/Forbes] Slack-fill lawsuits reveal nonfunctional void within class-action industry [Baylen Linnekin]
  • Musical instruments in court: the stories behind six famous gear disputes [Jay Laughton, Reverb last year]
  • “Secret of David Copperfield’s signature trick revealed in slip-and-fall suit by audience volunteer” [ABA Journal]
  • Given Congressional presence in area, California not entitled to use foie gras regulation to impose its views of duck and goose husbandry on producers outside state [Ilya Shapiro and Reilly Stephens on Cato cert amicus in Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Becerra]
  • “The earliest versions of the “People’s Court” TV show used law professors as the judges. They were picked because they were articulate and looked like judges but weren’t state bar members; for bar members, being on the show was seen as unlawful advertising.” [@OrinKerr linking Roger M. Grace, Metropolitan News-Enterprise in 2003]

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Supreme Court further reels in Alien Tort Statute

In my new Cato piece, I welcome the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which it continued its series of cases cabining the for-a-while-adventurous scope courts had begun to assign to the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, often called the Alien Tort Statute. In its new decision, the Court ruled that unless Congress provides by law for such application, the statute does not apply to foreign corporations as distinct from natural persons. “Issues of foreign affairs are peculiarly the province of the political branches, which can weigh (and take responsibility for) the dangers of engendering friction with foreign sovereigns by extending liability…. The Court has simply made it clear that if the United States courts are to become a sort of human rights policeman to the world, it is Congress that will need to decide to fit them out for that task.” Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas, concurring, would have gone further in confining the ATS to the instances in which Congress has chosen to create a cause of action through legislation. More on Jesner from Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog here and here; related on Kiobel in 2013 here, here, etc. More: Federalist Society “Courthouse Steps” with William Casto and Sam Estreicher.

Filed under: ,

Campus climate roundup

  • Applicants for faculty positions at UC San Diego must file written statement detailing “past efforts, as well as future plans to advance diversity, equity and inclusion,” and are warned that lip service isn’t enough [Stephen Bainbridge]
  • CUNY law dean: disruptors shouted down Josh Blackman for only eight minutes or so, nothing contrary to university rules in that [Robby Soave, earlier] “Hecklers of Campus Speakers: Easy Answers and Hard Questions” [Erica Goldberg] “Is Free Speech Becoming the Next Scare-Quote Domain?” [Paul Horwitz]
  • On a happier note, a Festschrift and tribute essay collection for the inimitable and unstoppable Richard Epstein [University of Chicago Law School]
  • “Readers may find it remarkable that these students expected the other people in the room to applaud and validate them for derailing the event.” [Robby Soave on Duke protest of alumni event] How to end a building occupation: “The phone calls [from NYU] advised parents that students who interfered with campus functions could [lose] financial aid or housing.” [Kyle Smith, NRO] “Some Pundits Say There’s No Campus Free Speech ‘Crisis.’ Here’s Why They’re Wrong” [Soave]
  • “The people in that room all agreed that I had committed sexual harassment by showing my class this film” [Soave; Massachusetts College of Art & Design]
  • A sociologist’s view: if my field is typical, postmodernism and intersectionalism haven’t taken over the academy [Nicholas Wolfinger]

Filed under: , ,

Ken White on RICO gone loco

With results that are not flattering to the Democratic National Committee in its suit against Russia, the Trump campaign, and sundry others: “There are three groups that use RICO indiscriminately: pro se litigants complaining that the Bureau of Indian Affairs implanted SatNav in their junk, plaintiffs’ attorneys of the sort who go to court in a sports coat they keep in their glove compartment, and professional vexatious litigants. That’s why many federal judges often have standard orders they issue in civil RICO cases that say, in effect, ‘you think you have a valid RICO claim? Fine, answer these 20 complicated questions to help me sort it out.’ Judges don’t do that for other claims. …. DNC, your lawsuit appears to reflect you going all-in on public relations strategy at the expense of effective legal strategy.” [Popehat] More: Mike Masnick, TechDirt: “basically a laundry list of the laws that we regularly talk about (especially about how they’re abused in litigation). Seriously, look at the complaint. There’s a CFAA claim, an SCA claim, a DMCA claim, a “Trade Secrets Act” claim… and everyone’s favorite: a RICO claim.”

Filed under: ,