//  5/16/18  //  Quick Reactions

As readers of this blog may know, law students at several schools have been organizing around law firms’ use of mandatory arbitration agreements. After at least one major law firm attempted to force incoming summer associates to sign agreements requiring them to confidentially arbitrate all employment-related claims (including sexual harassment claims), news of the agreement leaked and the firm rescinded the agreements.  At least two other firms followed suit, and law students at several schools quickly organized letters asking their schools to look into other firms’ use of mandatory arbitration agreements for employment-related claims.

Thanks to the effort of these students, the career services deans of a bunch of top law schools sent out a letter asking firms to report whether they require employees to sign mandatory arbitration or nondisclosure agreements.  It’s a positive step, and a real testament to the tenacity and focus of the students who maintained their schools’ focus on the issue.  But disclosure may not be a perfect solution as Adam Levitin explained at Credit Slips.  The law students who are organizing recognize as much too, with one students (Molly Coleman), telling Inside Higher Ed that:

“Contractually surrendering rights contributes to workplace cultures in which discrimination and harassment are facts of life for too many women who work for law firms…. We are pleased that we will soon have a better sense of the scope of the problem, but we know this is just a first step toward our ultimate goal of firms dropping these contract provisions for employees at all levels.”  

But for the moment, the letter that went out to law schools from career services is an occasion to celebrate and hope there are more positive developments to come.

@LeahLitman


Versus Trump: Going to Church In Times of COVID

12/7/20  //  Commentary

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the recent Supreme Court decisions requiring states to allow in-person religious services even while other gatherings can be banned. The pair gently disagree about how hard or easy these cases are. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Versus Trump: Blurring Public and Private Conduct

9/17/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss two new legal filings by the Trump DOJ that blur the line between the President as government official and the President as private citizen. In the first case, the government argues that the President's twitter feed is not an official public forum, so he can block people with whom he disagrees. In the second, the government argues that the President's denials that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll were made in his official capacity as President. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

How the Right to Vote Became Fundamental  

8/26/20  //  Commentary

The Nineteenth Amendment helped cement the idea that the right to vote is a fundamental right inherent in citizenship