Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Title VII (2)
- Antitrust (1)
- Bostock v. Clayton County (1)
- Breach of Privacy (1)
- Children’s Online Privacy (1)
-
- Child’s Health (1)
- China (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Discrimination Claims (1)
- Employer Affirmative Defense (1)
- Employment Law (1)
- Estate Planning (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Notarization Laws (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- Regulation of Social Media (1)
- Sharenting (1)
- The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (1)
- USA PATRIOT Act (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sharenting Is Here To Stay, So Now What?, Anonymous Author
Sharenting Is Here To Stay, So Now What?, Anonymous Author
Seattle University Law Review
This Note explores the concept of sharenting, its real-world consequences, and the daunting task of creating a workable solution. Part I of this Note provides a broad overview of sharenting and its implications. Part II describes the current state of the law and why sharenting remains a difficult issue to address. Part III discusses four legal frameworks posed by legal scholars to combat sharenting: anti-bullying, privacy, erasure, and child labor laws—and, ultimately, why each fails to offer an airtight solution. Part IV offers an alternative solution: the regulation of data brokers and outlawing advertisement-based social media platforms to protect children’s …
Cause For Concern Or Cause For Celebration?: Did Bostock V. Clayton County Establish A New Mixed Motive Theory For Title Vii Case And Make It Easier For Plaintiffs To Prove Discrimination Claims?, Terrence Cain
Seattle University Law Review
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “because of” race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This seems simple enough, but if an employer makes an adverse employment decision partly for an impermissible reason and partly for a permissible reason, i.e., if the employer acts with a mixed motive, has the employer acted “because of” the impermissible reason? According to Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the answer is no. The Courts in Gross and Nassar held …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents