Law Commons^™

The Eeoc, The Ada, And Workplace Wellness Programs, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

It seems that everybody loves workplace wellness programs. The Chamber of Commerce has firmly endorsed those progarms, as have other business groups. So has President Obama, and even liberal firebrands like former Senator Tom Harkin. And why not? After all, what's not to like about programs that encourage people to adopt healthy habits like exercise, nutritious eating, and quitting smoking? The proponents of these programs speak passionately, and with evident good intentions, about reducing the crushing burden that chronic disease places on individuals, families, communities, and the economy as a whole. What's not to like? Plenty. Workplace wellness programs are …

An Examination Of Trans Fat Labeling: Splitting The Third & Ninth Circuit, Jack Gainey

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

At first glance, consumer claims alleging misleading labeling would seem to find a simple resolution. Under 21 U.S.C. § 343, which governs misbranded food, a food product is misbranded if “its labeling is false or misleading.” However, controversial interpretation of seemingly straightforward statutory language, together with evolving case law, have blurred a once clear picture. Disagreement over the federal preemption of consumer claims regarding trans fat, underscored by a dispute regarding standing, have combined to create a divergence of opinions between courts across the country.

In 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California considered a …

Overreach And Innovation In Equality Regulation, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

At a time of heightened concern about agency overreach, this Article highlights a less appreciated development in agency equality regulation. Moving beyond traditional bureaucratic forms of regulation, civil rights agencies in recent years have experimented with new forms of regulation to advance inclusion. This new "inclusive regulation" can be described as more open ended, less coercive, and more reliant on rewards, collaboration, flexibility, and interactive assessment than traditional modes of civil rights regulation. This Article examines the power and limits of this new inclusive regulation and suggests a framework for increasing the efficacy of these new modes of regulation.