Boston University Pre-Law Review Volume I Issue XXVIII, Fall 2016 Cover Photo: Ian Koski “Pillars at U.S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
02 Trump and Libel: Understanding the First Amendment 08 Banking Regulation and the Wells Fargo Scandal 11 The Legal Implcations of Brexit 12 People v. Turner: The Reality of White Male Privilege 18 Child’s Best Interests versus Child’s Wishes Boston University Pre-Law Review Volume I Issue XXVIII, Fall 2016 Cover Photo: Ian Koski “Pillars at U.S. Supreme Court” Creative Commons Attribution No Derivative Works 4.0 License International - non-profit The Boston University Pre-Law Review Volume I Issue XXVIII , Fall 2016 Executive Board President: Claire Park CAS ‘18 Vice President Maxwell Robidoux CAS ’17 Secretary: Shanti Khanna CAS ’18 Editorial Staff Editor-in-Chief: Claire Park CAS ’18 Copy Editors: Shanti Khanna CAS ‘18 Shannon Larson COM ‘20 Sonali Paul QSB ‘19 Yvette Pollack COM ‘17 Ben Rabin CAS ‘20 Maxwell Robidoux CAS’17 Skyler Splinter CAS ‘17 Isaiah Tharan CAS ‘18 Sofia Zocca CAS ‘18 Layout Editors: Shanti Khanna CAS ’18 Claire Park CAS ’18 Faculty Advisors Dean Edward Stern Assistant Dean, Pre-Professional Advising (Law) Rita Callahan Ralston Pre-Law Academic Advisor Table of Contents 1. Is it Time for A Fused Legal Profession in England? Aleksandra Boots 1. Modern Women in the Workforce: Qualcomm and Gender Discrimination 1. Parihan Is it Time Ali for A Fused Legal Profession in England? Aleksandra Boots 2. Trump and Libel: Understanding the First Amendment 1. Luciano Is it Time Cesta for A Fused Legal Profession in England? Aleksandra Boots 3. Ed O’Bannon versus the NCAA: The Ultimate Tradeoff 1. Bradley Is it Time Ferber for A Fused Legal Profession in 4.England? Connecticut: Aleksandra The Battleground Boots for Educational Equality Samantha Kocharov 1. Is it Time for A Fused Legal Profession in 5.England? Zubik v. BurwellAleksandra and Boots the Possible Consequences of Supreme Court Vacancy VIctoria LeCates 6.1. Gun Is it Restrictions:Time for A Fused Progress Legal or Profession Second Amendment in Abrigment? England? Serina Mehrian Aleksandra Boots 7.1. A Is Historic it Time First for A for Fused the Obama Legal Profession Administration in England? Sonali Paul Aleksandra Boots 8.1. Banking Is it Time Regulation for A Fused and Legal the WellsProfession Fargo in Scandal England? Skyler Splinter Aleksandra Boots 9. Novel, Narrow, and Non-Mental: The Development of Patent-Eligible Claims 1. Is it Time for A Fused Legal Profession in Delaney Doran England? Aleksandra Boots 10. Ownership of Genetic Material 1. Olivia Is it FerrisTime for A Fused Legal Profession in England? Aleksandra Boots 11. The Legal Implications of Brexit 1. Natalie Is it Time Goldberg for A Fused Legal Profession in 12.England? People v.Aleksandra Turner: TheBoots Reality of White Male Privilege Noe Hinck 1. Is it Time for A Fused Legal Profession in 13.England? Wrongful Aleksandra Conviction Boots due to Intentional Errors in Investigation and Trial Process Alexandra Labonte 1. Is it Time for A Fused Legal Profession in 14.England? IDEA and Aleksandra Fry v. Napoleon Boots Shannon Larson 15.1. WhoIs it Time are “They”? for A Fused Legal Profession in England? Gregory McKnight Aleksandra Boots 16.1. SweptIs it Time Under for A the Fused Rug: Legal The Forgotten Profession Patent in Law England? Yvette Pollack Aleksandra Boots 17. Alice v. CLS Bank Ben Rabin 18. Child’s Best Interests versus Child’s Wishes Sofia Zocca Modern Women in the Workforce: QualcommBy Parihan Ali, CGS ‘19 and Gender Discrimination n 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938 and the Civil Rights Act of established a series of rules based on the Civil Rights Act,1 1964.13 However, Alcon Laboratories still appears to continue to which forbade discrimination in the workplace based on operate by a male dominated workforce. race, gender, color, religion, or nationality. For the first time, Americans were granted equal protection on a federal level, In light of these instances of gender discrimination in the work- regardless of an individual’s belief or appearance. However, with I place, the job scene might not look so secure for contemporary contemporary allegations of discrimination plaguing the nation’s women. Certain camps argue that businesses need to tackle the courts, many are reconsidering whether these laws have had their problem of discrimination on the individual level, while others intended effect. Women, in particular, are skeptical as they continue emphasize the need to reconstruct the company’s organizational to face issues regarding inequality in the workforce. As a result, structure. For example, Qualcomm has agreed to “invest in new many are questioning whether they are truly protected under the leadership programs and internal non-discrimination education.”14 law. However, whether this solution will combat the problem is up for debate. For the 3,300 women who work in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) operations at Qualcomm Inc., the answer is “No.” Qualcomm, Inc. is a telecommunications equipment company that faced a gender discrimination lawsuit on that basis that “women engineers faced systemic roadblocks to equal pay and promotion at the company.”2 In late 2015, seven plaintiffs alleged that Qualcomm assigned lower wages to women, employed less than 15 percent of women on their senior staff, and utilized an unfair system for job promotions.3 Qualcomm and the plaintiffs ultimately reached a settlement deal of $19.5 million, although the company denies liability.4 Many of the company’s employees question whether this result is enough to discourage Qualcomm’s “male dominated corporate culture”.5 The plaintiff’s legal representatives at Stanford Heisler believe that Qualcomm will cause other technology companies to reexamine their current employment strategies.6 Similar accusations arose in the case of Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974).7 The principal issue concerning Corning Glass Works was that it violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which regu- lates “equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.”.8 The company was accused of paying female employees who worked during the day less in comparison to men who worked the same job during the night shift.9 Qualcomm is thus a similar case to Corning. Plaintiffs in Qualcomm noted that having a male-dominated cor- porate culture leads to many unfair advantages for male employ- Sources 10 ees. They emphasized that women often “don’t learn the nuanced 142 U.S.C. rules of the workplace. They don’t learn how to play with the boys. 2Mike Freeman, “Qualcomm settles gender-discrimination lawsuit.” Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2016. So they increasingly are perceived as not as competent, not as com- 3Ibid. 11 4Ibid. petitive, not as assertive.” However, Qualcomm is not unique in 5Kelly, Heather. “Qualcomm to pay $19.5 million to settle gender discrimination suit.” CNN this regard, as evidenced by the fact that similar gender discrim- Money, July 27, 2016. 6Mike Freeman, “Qualcomm settles gender-discrimination lawsuit.” Los Angeles Times, July ination suits continue to be filed. Last year, Alcon Laboratories, 27, 2016. 7Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974). Inc. faced a lawsuit that dealt with frustrations regarding senior 829 U.S.C. § 206 9Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974). leadership disparity and inequality in promotion opportunities. 10Mike Freeman, “Qualcomm settles gender-discrimination lawsuit.” Los Angeles Times, July Plaintiffs Elyse Dickerson and Susan Orr said, “Male senior lead- 27, 2016. 11Ibid. ers invited younger male employees to visit strip clubs, play golf, 12Hethcock, Bill. “Alcon targeted in $110M gender discrimination lawsuit.” Dallas Business 12 Journal, March 18, 2015. http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/03/ and drink at bars, but female employees were rarely invited.” The alcon-targeted-in-110m-gender-discrimination.html 13Ibid. court determined that Alcon Laboratories was in direct violation 14 BU PRE-LAW REVIEW FALL 2016 Mike Freeman, “Qualcomm settles gender-discrimination lawsuit.” Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2016. 4 Trump and Libel: UnderstandingBy Luciano Cesta, CAS ‘19 the First Amendment n a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board in mention of wanting to erode the rights of a free press. However, March of 2016, Donald Trump stated that he would want it is important to acknowledge that such a proposal would face to “open up” American libel law if he were to win the 1 obstacles in the courts even if it passed through the legislature, presidency. The then-presidential candidate expressed his which would need to be controlled by lawmakers who favored desire to allow public officials to sue media outlets that 2 a blatant constitutional violation. After all, such a measure Ispread false information about said public official or other person. would require overturning both the precedent of a unanimous However, Trump’s proposals regarding libel fail to take into account Supreme Court case and undermining the legitimacy of the First that the most recent legal precedent has favored press protection, Amendment. While his chances of being able to “open up” libel and that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution laws are slim, Trump’s disregard for—or possibly, ignorance of— protects press speech. the First Amendment is disturbing, especially given that he is now the President-elect. “Trump’s proposals regarding libel fail to take into account that the most recent legal precedent has favorted press protection, and that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects press speech.” Changing libel laws would first require somehow nullifying or overturning the decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,3 one of the most influential Supreme Court cases regarding libel. The Court’s ruling extended free speech protections to include defama- tion of public officials, so long as it is not done with actual malice.