Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Cost Of Obeying The Law?: The Seventh Circuit Rejects The Bona Fide Error Defense From A Debt Collector Who Followed The Then-Binding Law, Jun Qiu
Seventh Circuit Review
It is expected that people should follow the law, which includes the statutes themselves and the judicial rulings interpreting those statutes. However, if the binding judicial interpretation changes, should the parties be liable for their behavior following the old binding judicial interpretation of a federal statute at the time when it was still in effect? Or, should there be any defense that would allow the parties to shield themselves from liability for a good-faith reliance on the old binding judicial interpretation?
Stranded At Sea: The Seventh Circuit And The Rule 11 “Safe Harbor” Rule, Daniel Ristau
Stranded At Sea: The Seventh Circuit And The Rule 11 “Safe Harbor” Rule, Daniel Ristau
Seventh Circuit Review
When lawyers pursue frivolous claims, they invite sanctions. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires attorneys to certify that the pleadings and motions they submit are meritorious. Since 1993, attorneys have been required to serve opposing counsel with a motion—to fire a warning shot—when they intend to file for sanctions. This provides attorneys an opportunity to seek “safe harbor” and avoid sanctions by withdrawing or amending actions brought for an improper purpose.
Your Supervisor As Your Chattel: Broadening The Scope Of Negligent Hiring And Retention In Illinois, Philip F. Vieira
Your Supervisor As Your Chattel: Broadening The Scope Of Negligent Hiring And Retention In Illinois, Philip F. Vieira
Seventh Circuit Review
In Illinois, employers have a duty to act reasonably in hiring and retaining their employees. An employer who negligently hires or retains an employee may be liable for injuries caused by that employee even if the employee is acting outside the scope of employment. Of course, this doctrine has to have some limit. Otherwise, employers would be responsible for practically any injury committed by one of its employees, even if it is only tangentially related to the fact of employment. However, courts have struggled to define that outer limit. Particularly when faced with horrific injuries, courts may be tempted to …
Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Are They Trainees And Not Employees At All? The Legality And "Economic Reality" Of Unpaid Internships, Beatriz Carrillo
Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Are They Trainees And Not Employees At All? The Legality And "Economic Reality" Of Unpaid Internships, Beatriz Carrillo
Seventh Circuit Review
The number of unpaid internships has skyrocketed over the past years as employers seem to prefer those with experience in the field. “Experience” has become the currency that college students seek to open the door to future employment. Unpaid interns have become the modern-day equivalent of entry-level employees. However, they are not paid for the hours worked and lack the normal employment protections offered to employees, such as FLSA and Title VII protections. The court's interest recently has been sparked to define the roles of interns in the labor force and has started to shape intern’s legal protections. As a …
The “Animus” Briefs: Attacks On The Seventh Circuit’S Sound Analysis Of Transgender Bathroom Rights In Public Schools, Brennan B. Hutson
The “Animus” Briefs: Attacks On The Seventh Circuit’S Sound Analysis Of Transgender Bathroom Rights In Public Schools, Brennan B. Hutson
Seventh Circuit Review
You have probably heard about state legislatures floating the idea of “bathroom laws” that would prohibit transgendered individuals from using the bathroom of their gender identity in public places. Although no state has actually signed such legislation into law, the spirit of those anti-transgender laws has been carried out in smaller governmental entities: public schools. Unlike a hypothetical state law, which would be nearly impossible to enforce without state officials performing inspections of genitals, a school policy is truly enforceable and has real effects.
Outgrowing Its Usefulness: Seventh Circuit Limits The Application Of The Common Actor Inference In Title Vii Discrimination Cases, Michael G. Zolfo
Outgrowing Its Usefulness: Seventh Circuit Limits The Application Of The Common Actor Inference In Title Vii Discrimination Cases, Michael G. Zolfo
Seventh Circuit Review
Can a person harbor discriminatory views toward protected minority groups, yet still hire a member of that group as an employee? Under Title VII jurisprudence, the “common actor inference” holds that if the same supervisor hires and fires an employee in a short time period, that supervisor likely did not have a discriminatory reason for the employment decision. The common actor inference has been accepted and used across all U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, but was recently criticized and limited by the Seventh Circuit.
Baby Got (A Broken) Back, But No Remedy: The Seventh Circuit’S Refusal To Provide A Remedy For Eighth Amendment Violations, Timothy Lavino
Baby Got (A Broken) Back, But No Remedy: The Seventh Circuit’S Refusal To Provide A Remedy For Eighth Amendment Violations, Timothy Lavino
Seventh Circuit Review
Since 1871, individuals have been able to bring a cause of action against state officials who violate the individual’s constitutional rights. However, it wasn’t until the 1965 case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics that the U.S. Supreme Court created a cause of action for individuals whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated by federal officials. Since 1965, this cause of action, known as a Bivens action, has been extended to violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.
Neither Cruel Nor Unusual: An Hour And A Half Delay In Treatment Can Now Amount To Deliberate Indifference, Monica J. Raven
Neither Cruel Nor Unusual: An Hour And A Half Delay In Treatment Can Now Amount To Deliberate Indifference, Monica J. Raven
Seventh Circuit Review
The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution proscribes cruel and unusual punishment. To state a cognizable claim, a plaintiff must allege that a prison official or medical professional was deliberately indifferent to his or her objectively serious medical need. In Lewis v. McLean, the Seventh Circuit analyzed whether a nurse and prison official’s hour and a half delay in treatment created a triable issue as to whether they acted with deliberate indifference. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants showed deliberate indifference to his severe back pain by delaying his access to medical care. The defendants, on the other hand, …
Between Scylla And Charybdis: Ezell V. City Of Chicago (Ezell Ii) And How The Seventh Circuit Continues To Narrow Chicago’S Constitutional Path Forward On Gun Control, Christopher Gerardi
Between Scylla And Charybdis: Ezell V. City Of Chicago (Ezell Ii) And How The Seventh Circuit Continues To Narrow Chicago’S Constitutional Path Forward On Gun Control, Christopher Gerardi
Seventh Circuit Review
It has been less than a decade since the Supreme Court reset the landscape of gun rights by recognizing, for the first time, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms unconnected with any militia service. The Court was notably silent as to which standard of review lower courts should apply to the inevitable wave of Second Amendment challenges to federal, state, and local gun control legislation. In the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court, the majority of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted a two-step means-end test similar in many respects …