This article will evaluate current federal and state policies dealing with the noncitizen population and, based on these evaluations, will lay out five rationales as to why states should hold Padilla retroactive. Together, these policy and fairness considerations show that states have a legitimate interest in recognizing Padilla’s retroactivity and in affording noncitizens the opportunity to challenge constitutionally deficient pre-Padilla guilty pleas.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., an all male Supreme Court majority held that closely held corporations controlled by religious families could not be required to pay for contraceptive coverage. While purporting to recognize that all individuals have the constitutional right to contraceptives, the Hobby Lobby Court effectively eliminated the right for female employees in religious corporations to access contraceptive coverage through employer-covered health plans. This analysis will consider how Hobby Lobby, in practice, violates federal anti-discrimination law under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”). As an avenue around Hobby Lobby’s seemingly dire consequences, activists ought to bring a Title VII challenge to employer insurance policies that deny women the right to contraceptive coverage.
Many African-Americans in the United States receive neither the adequate cancer prevention and detection services nor the most appropriate treatment when faced with a cancer diagnosis. This article proposes that an underlying factor influencing the inequality of treatment and care is the negative predisposed stereotypes and biases many practitioners have towards lower income minorities, particularly African-Americans. These predisposed stereotypes and biases can result in incomplete disclosure regarding an individual’s diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring, among other things. This article arrives at the conclusion that the lack of informed consent has played an important role in the health inequity between minorities of color and people who identify as White.
After firing its CEO in the summer of 2014, Market Basket Inc. (“Market Basket”) found itself in a rare situation that exposed the relatively unknown, but potentially disastrous consequences of focusing solely on the short-term increase of shareholder value. In the wake of employees and customers effectively bringing a $3.7 billion corporation’s operations to a standstill, there is an opportunity to question what boards of directors should consider when making decisions that are in the best interest for the company. The concern for and interest in the “Main Street” understandings may become more relevant to a corporation as it contemplates profit-making strategies. Thus, if the key to corporate success may no longer exclusively be increasing shareholder value, then what is the best approach?
The reactions of many non-shareholder constituents following the contentious decision of Market Basket’s board of directors provide an opportunity to examine the necessary elements of corporate profit maximization and the presence of narrative in corporate law. The current landscape of corporate law, corporate governance, and the focus on shareholder value can be analyzed using the events surrounding Market Basket as an illustration of what may happen more regularly in the future if corporations do not adjust their priorities.
Is bitcoin a type of virtual currency or a type of property? Either definition of bitcoin also carries other issues—including tax and regulation issues. The most critical issue related to the treatment of bitcoin is the criminal issue. How may bitcoin users be charged criminally? And since no bitcoin-specific legislation currently exists, under what laws may bitcoin users be charged?
In this article, I trace the development of Title VII religious accommodations and argue that the Tenth Circuit’s interpretation undermines the very purpose of the religious accommodation requirement. The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. provides employers with a roadmap for discriminating against applicants from identifiably religious minority backgrounds without significantly risking liability. At a time when certain religious minorities—specifically, Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs—already are disproportionately targeted because of bias, the requirement that employees or applicants explicitly notify employers of the need for religious accommodations increases their vulnerability.