Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Civil Law
Class Warfare: Why Antitrust Class Actions Are Essential For Compensation And Deterrence, Robert H. Lande
Class Warfare: Why Antitrust Class Actions Are Essential For Compensation And Deterrence, Robert H. Lande
All Faculty Scholarship
Recent empirical studies demonstrate five reasons why antitrust class action cases are essential: (1) class actions are virtually the only way for most victims of antitrust violations to receive compensation; (2) most successful class actions involve collusion that was anticompetitive; (3) class victims’ compensation has been modest, generally less than their damages; (4) class actions deter significant amounts of collusion and other anticompetitive behavior; and (5) anticompetitive collusion is underdeterred, a problem that would be exacerbated without class actions. Unfortunately, a number of court decisions have undermined class action cases, thus preventing much effective and important antitrust enforcement.
Protecting Common Law Rights Of The Unionized Worker: Demystifying Section 301 Preemption, Phillip Closius
Protecting Common Law Rights Of The Unionized Worker: Demystifying Section 301 Preemption, Phillip Closius
University of Baltimore Law Review
Employers are frequently subject to employee lawsuits alleging a tort. Non-unionized employees may seek damages for such conduct by their employers in state court. Unionized employees, however, face the risk that employers will seek to transfer the case to a federal district court in an attempt to immunize tort liability by claiming the complaint is preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA). Although § 301 remains essentially unchanged from the date of its adoption, judicial confusion over the scope of its preemptive effect frequently has broadened an employer’s ability to defeat state tort claims …