Law Commons^™

No Prior Experience Desired: Villarreal V. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. And The Scope Of Disparate Impact Claims Under The Adea, Nicholas Placente

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that § 4(a)(2) of the ADEA permits disparate impact claims for job applicants, despite the revised holding of the Eleventh Circuit. First, the plain meaning of § 4(a)(2) strongly suggests that disparate impact protections lie for job seekers, in contrast to the Eleventh Circuit’s ultimate finding. This argument draws on a close textual and structural analysis of the ADEA, supplemented with a comparative analysis to Title VII. Furthermore, this Note unpacks the legal arguments surrounding the 1972 amendment to Title VII, demonstrating that the absence of the “applicants for employment” language from § 4(a)(2) does not …

We’Ve Come A Long Way (Baby)! Or Have We? Evolving Intellectual Freedom Issues In The Us And Florida, L. Bryan Cooper, A.D. Beman-Cavallaro

Works of the FIU Libraries

This paper analyzes a shifting landscape of intellectual freedom (IF) in and outside Florida for children, adolescents, teens and adults. National ideals stand in tension with local and state developments, as new threats are visible in historical, legal, and technological context. Examples include doctrinal shifts, legislative bills, electronic surveillance and recent attempts to censor books, classroom texts, and reading lists.

Privacy rights for minors in Florida are increasingly unstable. New assertions of parental rights are part of a larger conservative animus. Proponents of IF can identify a lessening of ideals and standards that began after doctrinal fruition in the 1960s …

Screening Older Physicians For Cognitive Impairment: Justifiable Or Discriminatory?, Ilene N. Moore

Health Matrix: The Journal of Law-Medicine

In the U.S., one out of eight practicing physicians is older than sixty-five, and many practice well into their seventies. Many commentators and healthcare organizations, concerned that aging physicians are at risk for cognitive impairment, have urged, or actually instituted, cognitive "screening" for older physicians as a means to ensure patient safety. An age-based screening program, however, should not proceed unless supported by clear evidence and not prohibited by law. This article argues that neither of these conditions applies. Singling out all older physicians for cognitive testing is empirically unjustified and legally prohibited. Furthermore, there are other means to reliably …