Ross Runkel’s LawMemo has news of the U.S. Supreme Court granting cert. in a USERRA cat paw case. You may recall that the Court previously took cert. in another cat’s paw case in 2007 in the Title VII context (BCI Coca-Cola Bottling v. EEOC), but that case was never heard by the Court because it settled.
Here is the 411 from Ross on Staub v. Proctor Hospital (US Supreme Ct cert granted 04/19/2010):
Many people, particularly those who lack or have little athletic ability, perceive elite athletic performance as solely a function of outstanding physical abilities and skills. In a recent article with the above title, Carl Zimmer writes: “The qualities that set a great athlete apart from the rest of us lie not just in the muscles and the lungs but also between the ears. That’s because athletes need to make complicated decisions in a flash.” His article describes several neurological studies of the brains of great athletes in an effort to learn more about how the brain works. Research suggests that the brains of elite athletes are more efficient and able to respond more quickly to rapidly changing variables, which enables their bodies to perform physical tasks much better and faster than those with average brains. To me, this suggests that great athletes, with the necessary legal education, would make good trial lawyers.
As Andrea Schneider observes in a new article, media coverage of the 2008 election nicely illustrates the dilemma facing many women in leadership roles: they are apt to be perceived as either competent but unlikeable (the way that Hillary Clinton was often portrayed) or likeable but incompetent (the way that Sarah Palin was often portrayed). Andrea and her coauthors also discuss research indicating that this dilemma is not limited to the political sphere, but may be experienced by professional women in many other settings, including the practice of law.
Although the problem they discuss seems to arise from deeply rooted gender stereotypes, Andrea and her coauthors believe that educational institutions (including law schools) can help to reduce the negative effects of the stereotypes. For instance, they suggest a number of specific exercises that can help to raise awareness among students of the persistence of gender bias, such as having students evaluate two hypothetical job applicants with identical credentials, one male and one female.
The article, coauthored with Catherine Tinsley, Sandra Cheldelin, and Emily Amanatullah, is entitled “Leadership and Lawyering Lessons From the 2008 Elections.” It was recently published at 30 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol’y 581.