New Issue of MU Law Review

I’ve just received my brand-new, hot-off-the-presses issue of the Marquette Law Review, which has several articles I am looking forward to reading.  Here are the contents:

Nantiya Ruan, Accommodating Respectful Religious Expression in the Workplace, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 1 (2008) (SSRN version here).

Scott A. Schumacher, MacNiven v. Westmoreland and Tax Advice: Using Purposive Textualism to Deal with Tax Shelters and Promote Legitimate Tax Advice, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 33 (2008).

Michael W. Loudenslager, Giving Up the Ghost: A Proposal for Dealing With Attorney “Ghostwriting” of Pro Se Litigants’ Court Documents Through Explicit Rules Requiring Disclosure and Allowing Limited Appearances for Such Attorneys, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 103 (2008).

Barbara O’Brien & Daphna Oyserman, It’s Not Just What You Think, But How You Think About It: The Effect of Situationally Primed Mindsets on Legal Judgments and Decision Making,  92 Marq. L. Rev. 149 (2008).

Joan Shepard, Comment, The Family Medical Leave Act: Calculating the Hours of Service for the Reinstated Employee, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 173 (2008).

Charles Stone, Comment, What Plagiarism Was Not: Some Preliminary Observations on Classical Chinese Attitudes Towards What the West Calls Intellectual Property, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 199 (2008).

Congratulations to the student editors of Volume 92 for the successful completion of their first issue!

Continue ReadingNew Issue of MU Law Review

Sharpton Comes Out Against EFCA

Sharpton Somewhat surprising (though not surprising that The National Review picked it up):

This is a transcript [from] the Al Sharpton Radio program earlier [yesterday].

Al Sharpton: Yeah, well, what I don’t understand about it which is why I’m in the campaign is why wouldn’t those of us who support workers being protected, why would we not want their privacy protected.  I mean why would we want them opened up to this kind of possible coercion?

Continue ReadingSharpton Comes Out Against EFCA

Krueger on Lessons From the Chicago Sit-In and the WARN Act

Kreuger Alan Krueger, the Princeton economist, has this commentary in the New York Times on the recent sit-down strike at the Republic Windows plant in Chicago and the WARN Act:

The sit-in at the Republic Windows & Doors factory in Chicago last week brought the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 — or WARN Act for short – to the forefront of attention. This law requires large employers (those with 100 or more employees) to provide 60 days of written advance notice prior to a plant closing or mass layoff.

The WARN Act was passed after a long-running, rancorous debate. President Ronald Reagan vetoed a trade bill because it included provisions of the WARN Act. The WARN Act was later reintroduced as a stand-alone measure and passed by Congress with enough votes to override a presidential veto in July 1988. The WARN Act became law without President Reagan’s signature, and he issued a statement calling the law “counterproductive.” . . .

Continue ReadingKrueger on Lessons From the Chicago Sit-In and the WARN Act
Newer Posts
Older Posts