Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Neither Savior Nor Bogeyman: What Waits Behind The Door Of Third-Party Litigation Financing?, Jeremy Kidd
Neither Savior Nor Bogeyman: What Waits Behind The Door Of Third-Party Litigation Financing?, Jeremy Kidd
Jeremy Kidd
The arguments for and against third-party litigation financing are based on incorrect assumptions regarding the impacts on total litigation. A formal model incorporating the choices of plaintiff, lawyer, and financier shows only minimal impact on total litigation, largely positive. However, after addressing the potential for long-term, strategic behavior by financiers, it is obvious that some dangers remain. Divorced from the dramatic claims of proponents and opponents, litigation financing is merely a tool that can be used for good or bad, and differentiating by types of claims and the incentives of the parties allows that tool to be appropriately used.
Can We Learn Anything About Pleading Changes From Existing Data?, Jonah B. Gelbach
Can We Learn Anything About Pleading Changes From Existing Data?, Jonah B. Gelbach
All Faculty Scholarship
In light of the gateway role that the pleading standard can play in our civil litigation system, measuring the empirical effects of pleading policy changes embodied in the Supreme Court's controversial Twombly and Iqbal cases is important. In my earlier paper, Locking the Doors to Discovery, I argued that in doing so, special care is required in formulating the object of empirical study. Taking party behavior seriously, as Locking the Doors does, leads to empirical results suggesting that Twombly and Iqbal have had substantial effects among cases that face Rule 12(b)(6) motions post-Iqbal. This paper responds to …
The Compromised Worker And The Limits Of Employment Discrimination Law, Peter Siegelman
The Compromised Worker And The Limits Of Employment Discrimination Law, Peter Siegelman
Peter Siegelman
Why do employment discrimination plaintiffs fare so poorly? Many explanations have been offered, but this essay suggests a new one: a substantial fraction of all plaintiffs are “compromised” workers, meaning that they have done something on the job that might plausibly justify the treatment about which they are complaining. As a matter of both doctrine and logic, compromised plaintiffs can be legitimate victims of discrimination. But they face substantial difficulties in proving that their employer relied on a prohibited characteristic in its treatment of them because, by definition, their behavior offers a plausibly legitimate explanation for their treatment. After demonstrating …