Law Commons^™

Employment Law—Dazed And Confused: Arkansas Employers And The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment Of 2016, Austin Powell

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure—Dukes Commonality Standard—Factors That Courts Should Weigh In Employment Discrimination Class Actions—Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), Anuj Teotia

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employee Benefits Law—Shifting The Burden Out Of Neutral: Why Burden-Shifting Is Necessary In Erisa Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claims, William G. Mcgrath

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Law—Just Let Them Handle It Amongst Themselves: An Argument In Favor Of Abandoning The Application Of The Lynn's Food Stores Standard To Flsa Settlement Agreements, Matthew C. Lewis

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Law—Antidiscrimination—Falling Into The Legal Void: How Arkansas Can Protect Unpaid Interns From Discrimination And Harassment, Christina Redmann

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Motor Carrier Excuse, David M. Cole

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Labor And Employment—Not Waiting For Superman: Collective Bargaining As An Affirmation Of Teachers' Value, Christopher Yeatman

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Caste Discrimination And Federal Employment Law In The United States, Brian Elzweig

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Law—The Split Over The Shift: The Burden Of Proving Causation In Claims For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Under Erisa, William J. Swartzwelder

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Law—Mandatory-Workplace Donning And Doffing—All In A Day's Work: A Review Of Gerber Products Company V. Hewitt, 2016 Ark. 222, 492 S.W.3d 856., Liz Harris

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Law—Employment Discrimination—Unnecessarily Duplicative: Has The Sixth Circuit Gone Too Far In Upholding An Employer’S Ability To Require Incumbent Employees To Provide Doctor’S Notes After Taking Sick Leave? Lee V. City Of Columbus, Ohio 636 F.3d 245 (6th Cir. 2011), Thomas H. Wyatt

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shifting The Burden: Genuine Disputes And Employment Discrimination Standards Of Proof, Barrett S. Moore

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Enacted for the purpose of battling workplace discrimination by targeting discrimination against minorities and the disadvantaged, Title VII has become somewhat of an apparition for good-intentioned employers seeking to follow the law. For example, in Ricci v. DeStefano, the city of New Haven, Connecticut refused to hire white firefighters based on a qualification test because to do so would produce the outcome of hiring too few minority firefighters. Despite New Haven's good intentions, the hiring process illegally brought race into the hiring process, thereby showing that America's relationship with civil rights legislation has come full circle.

At the center of …

Subordinate Bias Liability, Theresa M. Beiner

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Often, decisions regarding employment are made with the input of or based on the observations of more than one person. This presents complications for employment discrimination plaintiffs seeking to prove discriminatory animus resulting in an adverse employment decision for the plaintiff. Specifically, many plaintiffs are left to deal with the unresolved issue of whether they have a claim for employment discrimination when a discriminating non-decision making coworker or direct supervisor supplies incorrect or distorted information to their superiors who have the authority to fire them. This is known as the "cat's paw" theory of liability or "subordinate bias liability."

The …

Employment Law—The Elusive Enforceability Of Employment Covenants Not To Compete In Arkansas, Victoria J. Malony

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Generally speaking, a covenant not to compete , or noncompete agreement, is a promise in an employment contract not to engage in the same type of business for a stated time in the same market as the employer. When these agreements are found by courts to be unenforceable, it leaves employers vulnerable to competitors. On the other hand, when they are enforced, employees may be unable to find work in the industry in which they are most experienced.

Because of the conflicts inherent in covenants not to compete, many courts have struggled to create a rule that can be fairly …

Employment Law - Antidiscrimination - Heading Toward Federal Protection For Sexual Orientation Discrimination?, Matthew Barker

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Law - Antidiscrimination - Unpaid And Unprotected: Protecting Our Nation's Volunteers Through Title Vii, Tara Kpere Daibo

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Darned If You Due Process, Darned If You Don't! Understanding The Due Process Dilemma For Punitive Damages In Title Vii Class Actions, Paul Edgar Harold, Tracy L. Cole

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

When Congress expanded the remedies available to Title VII the plaintiffs in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to include compensatory and punitive damages, it did not realize that it was creating a minefield for certifying would-be Title VII class actions. The Fifth Circuit thoroughly explored many of the new pitfalls and hazards in its landmark opinion in Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. This article attempts to critically evaluate a recent post-Allison trend whereby Title VII plaintiffs seeking class certification have foregone their claims for compensatory damages while still seeking punitive damages. Plaintiffs, relying on the Supreme Court's recent cases …

Employment & Disability Law—Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990—The Weight Of Personal Responsibility: Obesity, Causation, And Protected Physical Impairments, Matthew Glover

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which became effective two years later. Because the ADA lacked a list of all the disabilities it covered, courts have considered obesity and morbid obesity to be disabilities in some cases but not in others, notwithstanding the legislation’s desire for clarity and consistency in eliminating discrimination against the individuals with disabilities.

There seems to be a trend towards presuming that obesity is a matter of personal responsibility rather than a protected disability. The most recent developments in obesity jurisprudence have held that morbid obesity—absent evidence of physiological causation—was …

Invisible Actors: Genetic Testing And Genetic Discrimination In The Workplace, Susannah Carr

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Current federal and state law is inadequate to protect employees from employer's misuse of their genetic information. Genetic information is knowledge of a person's genome that indicates a predisposition towards an illness, disease, or medical condition, where symptoms of the condition have yet to manifest themselves. Federal law protections are insufficient, and relevant state laws vary in their scope and application. Not only are employees unevenly protected across the United States, but varying standards also make complying with the law difficult for interstate employees.

To give employees sufficient protection and to facilitate employer compliance, Congress should pass a law specifically …

Employment Law—Title Vii And The Anti-Retaliation Provision—Beyond Employment And The Workplace: The United States Supreme Court Resolves The Split And Shifts The Balance. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Co. V. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006)., Kaylin Redman Hart

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

In its recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Co. v. White, the Supreme Court resolved the split along the federal circuit courts by extending Title VII's anti-retaliation provision to retaliatory acts and harms that are unrelated to employment or that occur outside of the workplace. The Court limited its holding by concluding that Title VII prohibits only those employer actions that would "dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." This note examines the significance of the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Co. v. White to employers and employees in …

Pension And Employee Benefit Law—Employee Retirement Income Security Act—An Owner-Employee Can Qualify As A "Participant" In An Erisa Pension Plan Sponsored By His Corporation, As Long As The Plan Covers One Or More Non-Owner Employees. Yates V. Hendon, 541 U.S. 1 (2004), Quentin May

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pretender In Paradise, J. Richard Cohen

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Using Evidence Of Women's Stories In Sexual Harassment Cases, Theresa M. Beiner

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employer Liability For Sexual Harassment - Normative, Descriptive, And Doctrinal Interactions: A Reply To Professors Beiner And Bisom-Rapp, Linda Hamilton Krieger

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fixing Watches With Sledgehammers: The Questionable Embrace Of Employee Sexual Harassment Training By The Legal Profession, Susan Bisom-Rapp

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Resurgence Of The Class Action Lawsuit In Employment Discrimination Cases: New Obstacles Presented By The 1991 Amendments To The Civil Rights Act, Scotty Shively

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1900: A Road Now Too Narrow, Luther Sutter

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Reins In The Americans With Disabilities Act, Stephen W. Jones

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Workers' Compensation—Who Has Jurisdiction To Determine Jurisdiction? The Arkansas Supreme Court Abandons A Rule Of Concurrent Jurisdiction And Adopts The Doctrine Of Primary Jurisdiction. Van Wagoner V. Beverly Enterprises, 334 Ark. 12, 970 S.W.2d 810 (1998)., Jill Jones Moore

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Arbitration, Labor Contracts, And The Ada: The Benefits Of Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements And An Update On The Conflict Between The Duty To Accommodate And Seniority Rights, Jan William Sturner

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.