American Constitution Society - Missouri » access to justice

What’s at Stake on Nov. 4th? The Future of the Supreme Court

Jonathan Hutcheson — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:34:25 +0000

The American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society present “What’s at Stake on Nov. 4th? The Future of the Supreme Court” – a discussion about the impact of the upcoming national election on the United States Supreme Court.

For more background on our two distinguished speakers, please visit the following links:

For David C. Frederick, see http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=dcf232
http://www.khhte.com/attorneys_view.php?id=88

For Stephen McAllister, see http://www.law.ku.edu/faculty/faculty/mcallister.shtml

Supreme Court Series: Administrative, Regulatory, & Antitrust Law

Jonathan Hutcheson — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:38:27 +0000

The Supreme Court Series wraps up on the first day of the 2008 fall term – October 6th – at 1pm in the Courtroom with a discussion regarding developments in the areas of administrative, regulatory, and antitrust law. Featuring Profs. Philip Harter and Thom Lambert.

Supreme Court Series: Election Law, Free Speech, & Preemption

Jonathan Hutcheson — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:35:16 +0000

The Supreme Court Series continues on September 29th at 1pm in the Courtroom with a discussion regarding developments in the areas of election law, free speech, and preemption. Featuring Profs. Richard Reuben and Christina Wells.

Supreme Court Series: Does the right to a fair trial exist?

Jonathan Hutcheson — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:07:19 +0000

The Supreme Court Series continues on September 22nd at 1pm in Room 5 with a discussion on Snyder v. Louisiana, a case from last term, along with whether or not the right to a fair trial is largely illusory. Featuring Missouri Law Profs. Steve Easton and Rod Uphoff.

Sexual Assault “Outside Scope” Says Texas Judge

Matthew Frederick — Sun, 11 May 2008 08:24:43 +0000

A Texas judge ruled Friday that Jamie Leigh Jones’ sexual assault and false imprisonment claims against KBR and Halliburton may go forward before a judge and jury. The judge ruled that these claims fell outside the scope of Jones’ employment contract’s mandatory arbitration provision.

The judge ruled that Jones’ sexual harassment claim, however, does fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.

(See our previous post on Jones’ case.)

When Privatizing Justice Means “Arbitrating” Rape

Matthew Frederick — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:28:43 +0000

Mandatory arbitration agreements are an “opportunity to create private legal systems of unwritten norms, written rules, and the precedents of private courts.”

In disputes between two corporations, perhaps mandatory arbitration is not such a bad idea. But what about disputes between creditor and debtor, or employer and employee? Natasha Chart at OpenLeft:

Imagine that you’re unemployed and need to get a job. It takes a lot of time these days. You call in all your favors, badger the FBI (friends, brothers and in-laws), send out your resume, go on some interviews. Some days, you replay a dead-end interview conversation over and over again in your mind, ‘What did I say? What didn’t I say? How could I have said that when I’d already rehearsed that question?’ You worry, pace, lay awake and occasionally sit staring mournfully at your breakfast, wondering how much longer your favorite cereal is going to be on the menu.
Then the day you’ve been waiting for: you’re hired.One catch.

The HR rep puts a piece of paper on the desk in front of you and says you have to sign it to get the job. So you look it over. It’s barely comprehensible, something about dispute resolution, but you see a word that makes you start reading a bit more closely.

“… in the event employee is raped by coworkers … company complicit … agree not to go to court … civil suit settled through private arbitration firm of employer’s choosing …”

In the event, wait … what!? You’d probably wonder what country you were in, wonder if you were really reading English, as you had innocently suspected when you sat down. Surely, I mean, come on, that can’t be right. Is it even legal to sign away your right to go to court if someone commits a crime against you?

Yes. Let’s take it as read that it is.

So really, think about it. You need this job, your family needs you to take it, and you don’t know when another one will be on offer. Would you sign that piece of paper?

You’ve thought about it now? Good. Don’t you wish I’d just made that up on my own and was pulling your leg?

Read the whole thing, and follow the links.

“Unconscionable” is too weak of a word.