Disability Discrimination in the Form of Ad Hoc Examinations: A Brief Introduction
bhildebrand
Nearly every Employment Law casebook, course, and lecture includes at least some mention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition to the ADA, the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace. Under either Act, an employer-mandated medical examination of an individual with disabilities is presumed to be unlawful discrimination. Thomas E. Simmons, an associate professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law, examines the business necessity defense available to rebut this presumption as articulated by the Nebraska Supreme Court in Arens v. NEBCO, Inc. Professor Simmons’ article may be found here and directly linked to from the Bulletin. The Bulletin welcomes any response, counter or commentary which may be forwarded to the Online Editor.
The Nebraska Law Review Joins Twitter
bhildebrand
In an effort to increase its online presence, the Nebraska Law Review, has joined the twitter community. Please follow the Review @NebLRev for helpful information and updates regarding Nebraska and 8th Circuit issues.
Any comments or questions may be directed to Briana Hildebrand, the Online Editor.
2014 Nebraska Law Review Write-On Competition
pbdonahue
This post contains materials for the 2014 University of Nebraska College of Law annual write-on competition.
This competition is open to UNL Law students who have completed their 1L year or are a transfer student, and have two (2) or more remaining (non-summer) semesters left. Further instructions are available in the attached materials.
If you have any questions, please contact Sarah Hindman, Research Editor, at sarahnhindman@gmail.com.
Best of luck!
Materials for 2014 Write-On Competition
Our Court Masters
Chad J. Pomeroy
I. Introduction
II. The Gun or the Salute
III. The Limits of Volunteerism
IV. Different Views of How Courts View Their Role ... A. The Dynamic Court View and the Constrained Court View of the Courts ... B. All Views Eventually Answer to Society
V. When Courts Exceed Perceived Social Norms, They Risk Their Own Legitimacy ... A. The Resistant Psychology of Contrary Directives ... B. Examples of Courts Stretching Social Norms ... C. Legitimacy Undermined: The Fallout of Stretching Social Norms ... D. A Contemporary Narrative
VI. Conclusion
The Historical Case for Abandoning Strickland
Brian R. Gallini
I. Introduction
II. The Strange Right-to-Counsel Journey ... A. The Journey to Strickland ... B. Defining Who Is “Effective” Counsel
III. Strickland’s Untold Story ... A. Part V’s Analytical Fallacies ... 1. Tunkey’s Suppression Motions, Sentencing Memorandum, and Performance at Sentencing ... 2. Character Evidence, Psychological Evidence, and Giving Up on David Washington ... 3. Washington’s “Rap Sheet” ... B. The Disutility of Part V ... C. Justice O’Connor’s Private and Unspoken War
IV. Conclusion
Copyright’s Unconsidered Assumption: Statutory Successors to the Termination Interest (and the Unintended Consequences for Estate Planners)
Katie Joseph
I. Introduction
II. A Brief Overview of Termination
III. Legislative History of Successors in Reversion and Termination ... A. 1790–1831 ... B. The 1909 Copyright Act … 1. Conferences ... 2. Congressional Proceedings ... C. The 1976 Act ... 1. Studies and Conferences on Revision ... 2. Congressional Proceedings
IV. A More Sensible Succession ... A. Termination as a Planning Challenge ... B. The Preference for Testamentary Freedom ... C. Two Statutory Solutions ... 1. Reorder Statutory Successors ... 2. Exempt Certain Lifetime Transfers ... V. Planning & Termination ... A. Is Termination a Concern? ... B. Transfer by Will ... C. Work Made for Hire
VI. Conclusion
Free Exercise and Substantial Burdens under Federal Law
Mark Strasser
I. Introduction
II. The Ever-Changing Free Exercise Jurisprudence ... A. Reynolds ... B. Modern Jurisprudence Suggesting No Exemptions Are Required ... C. The Jurisprudence Does an About-Face ... D. An Implicit Modification of the Jurisprudence? ... E. Back to Robust Protection? ... F. Tepid Protection?
III. The Congressional Response to the Court’s Free Exercise Jurisprudence ... A. RLUIPA ... B. RFRA ... C. The Circuits’ Quandary
IV. Conclusion