Law Commons^™

Constraining Public Employee Speech: Government's Control Of Its Workers' Speech To Protect Its Own Expression, Helen Norton

Publications

This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts' treatment of public employees' First Amendment claims--a shift that imperils the public's interest in transparent government as well as the free speech rights of more than twenty million government workers. In the past, courts interpreted the First Amendment to permit governmental discipline of public employee speech on matters of public interest only when such speech undermined the government employer's interest in efficiently providing public services. In contrast, courts now increasingly focus on--and defer to--government's claim to control its workers' expression to protect its own speech.

More specifically, courts increasingly permit government …

The Courts Under President Obama, Scott A. Moss

Publications

No abstract provided.

If It Is Broken, Then Fix It: Needed Reforms To Employment Discrimination Law: 2009 Annual Meeting Of The Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Melissa Hart, Minna Kotkin, Roberto Corrada, Deborah Widiss

Publications

No abstract provided.

Is It The "Real Thing"? How Coke's One-Way Binding Arbitration May Bridge The Divide Between Litigation And Arbitration, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

Although the scholarly literature is replete with discussion of the pros and cons of mandatory arbitration and civil litigation, relative to one another, there has been no examination of one-way binding arbitration as a potential bridge between these procedural poles. The goal of this article is to fill that void. One-way binding arbitration requires an employee to use arbitration to resolve workplace disputes, but also gives the employee, but not the employer, the option of rejecting the arbitrator’s decision. In the event the employee is not satisfied with the outcome of arbitration, she can still pursue her claim in court. …

Procedural Extremism: The Supreme Court's 2008-2009 Labor And Employment Cases, Melissa Hart

Publications

It has become nearly a commonplace to say that the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts is a court of “incrementalism.” The 2008 Term, however, featured several opinions that showcase the procedural extremism of the current conservative majority. In a series of sharply divided decisions, the Court re-shaped the law that governs the workplace - or more specifically the law that governs whether and how employees will be permitted access to the courts to litigate workplace disputes. At least as important as the Court’s changes to the substantive legal standards are the procedural hurdles the five …

Colorado V. Connelly: What Really Happened, William T. Pizzi

Publications

In 1986, the Supreme Court decided Colorado v. Connelly, a landmark case in due process and fifth amendment law. The case began when Francis Barry Connelly approached a police officer on the street in downtown Denver to confess to having killed a young woman several months earlier in southwest Denver. Because Connelly was suffering from acute schizophrenia and was hearing auditory hallucinations commanding him to confess, state courts suppressed his statements to the police on the grounds (1) that his statements before arrest were involuntary and inadmissible under the due process clause and (2) those statements post-arrest could not …