Digital Commons Network^™

Rule 10b-5-The Equivalent Scope Of Liability Under Respondeat Superior And Section 20(A)-Imposing A Benefit Requirement On Apparent Authority, Carol M. Lynch

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note demonstrates that the scope of employer liability for employees' rule 10b-5 violations is no broader under a proper application of respondeat superior than under section 20(a). This Note does not address the question whether respondeat superior applies under rule 10b-5, but rather how courts should apply it.

Part II examines the majority, minority, and Third Circuit decisions on employer liability. Part III discusses the traditional analysis under both respondeat superior and section 20(a) and compares the scope of liability under each one. Part III concludes that except for an employer's liability for acts that are within an employee's …

Baseball's Third Strike: The Triumph Of Collective Bargaining In Professional Baseball, Robert A. Mccormick

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since the inception of professional baseball, team owners have imposed limits on the freedom of players to negotiate contract terms. In this article Professor McCormick traces the history of attempts by professional baseball players to obtain contractual freedoms through the use of the antitrust and labor relations laws, attempts that culminated with the players' strike of 1981. Although players in other team sports successfully have utilized antitrust laws to increase player bargaining power, Professor McCormick argues that labor law has provided baseball players the only effective means to gain increased contractual freedoms. Professor McCormick concludes that player-owner disputes over the …

Back Pay In Employment Discrimination Cases, James L. Hughes, David R. Jennings, Charles D. Maguire, Jr., Betsy G. Shain, Jay L. Tobin, Jay F. Whittle, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Special Project examines the back pay decisions and analyzes the problems that have confronted the courts dealing with this remedy for employment discrimination in the context of Title VII and section 1981. Because of the enormity of the issues that have arisen in Stage I of the proceedings, however, and the extensive coverage given those problems by the courts and commentators, the Special Project will deal only with the recovery stage, or Stage II, of the litigation. Consequently, the reader should assume that liability for employment discrimination has already been established in each of the cases discussed below. Before …

Limiting The Right To Terminate At Will -Have The Courts Forgotten The Employer?, Charles A. Brake, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note examines the extent to which courts should apply the public policy exception to abrogate the common-law right of an employer to terminate at will. Although some limits must be placed upon employers in order to protect those employees who lack adequate bargaining power, this Note proposes that the courts should strike a balance among the interests of the employer, the employee, and society. This balance can be achieved by limiting the public policy exception to those instances in which an employee is discharged in contravention of a legislatively articulated public policy. This approach would achieve equitable results since …