Archive for January, 2013

Feds rewrite college cafeteria menus under ADA

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Lesley University in Cambridge, Mass. was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it failed to

* Continually provide ready-made hot and cold gluten- and allergen-free food options in its dining hall food lines;

* Develop individualized meal plans for students with food allergies, and allow those students to pre-order allergen free meals, that can be made available at the university’s dining halls in Cambridge and Boston;

* Provide a dedicated space in its main dining hall to store and prepare gluten-free and allergen-free foods and to avoid cross-contamination;

And much more. The college has also agreed to pay $50,000 to students affected by its earlier policies. [J. Christian Adams] Similarly: Hans von Spakovsky, FoxNews.

P.S. NPR report confirms demand from advocates for “gluten-free food [that] is prepared and served in dedicated areas.”

“What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2013?”

The “public domain” isn’t just some hedonistic collective consumption good, but a vital resource for creators; thus Disney was able to base its golden-age animation features on literary properties and tropes that it could freely transform without permission. Among the properties we could have started freely transforming and remixing in this country had Congress not unilaterally and drastically extended copyright lengths: The King and I, Ian Fleming’s Diamonds Are Forever, Long Day’s Journey Into Night, My Fair Lady, and the novel 101 Dalmatians. [Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain via BB, similar, related]

Labor and employment roundup

  • Judge rules in first California “suitable seating at work” trial [The Recorder; earlier here, here]
  • On business travel: “Injury During Sex is Work-Related and Compensable, Aussie Court Holds” [Workplace Prof]
  • On the other hand: “Running in High Heels Was Probably Enough to Defeat This Workers’ Comp Claim” [Lowering the Bar]
  • Illinois federal court rules that unpaid volunteers may be covered by Title VII discrimination law [Eric Sigda, GTLE Blog]
  • Seattle to pay drama teacher $750K for not accommodating wishes re: renovation of building [Seattle Times, meanwhile]
  • Recalling AP v. NLRB, 1937, in which SCOTUS rejected First Amendment defense to Wagner Act, over Sutherland dissent [Gerard Magliocca, ConcurOp]
  • House Oversight Committee blasts NLRB for pro-union bias [press release and staff report PDF, Goldberg Segalla]

Brian Tamanaha (Failing Law Schools) at Cato Jan. 16

Mark your calendar! On January 16 at noon in Washington, D.C., Prof. Brian Tamanaha of Washington University will speak at a Cato Book Forum on his much-acclaimed new book, Failing Law Schools. Commenting will be Neal McCluskey, who directs Cato’s program on education policy, and University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos, like Tamanaha a celebrated critic of the American law school scene. I’ll be moderating. The event in Washington, D.C. is free and open to the public; details on how to register here.

From the event description:

For decades, American law schools enjoyed one of the world’s great winning streaks. Amid swelling enrollments and what seemed an insatiable demand for new lawyers, they went on a spree of expansion; even as tuitions soared, the schools basked in an air of public-interest rectitude symbolized by Yale law dean Harold Koh’s description of his institution as a “Republic of Conscience.” Then came the Great Recession—and a great reckoning. New graduates were unable to find decently paying legal jobs even as they staggered under enormous debt burdens; it became impossible to ignore long-standing complaints from the world of legal practice that the law curriculum does not train students well in much of what lawyers do; and creative efforts to reduce the cost of law school were stymied by an accreditation process that closely constrains the format of legal education. In Failing Law Schools, one of the most talked-of books in years about higher education, Brian Tamanaha of Washington University has written a devastating critique of what went wrong with the American law school and what can be done to fix it. None of the key contributors to the problem—faculty self-interest, university administrators’ myopia, cartel-like accreditation—escape unscathed in his analysis.

We’ve often cited the work of Profs. Tamanaha and Campos in this space and linked to reviews and discussions of Failing Law Schools here, here, here, here, here, and here. National Jurist just named Prof. Tamanaha as #1 on its list of the year’s most five most influential people in legal education. See you there on Jan. 16!

2012: most popular and most commented-on posts

Here are the five posts published in 2012 that drew the highest traffic over the past year:

Dressing psychiatrists as wizards on the witness stand [January]
Doormat warning [December]
Long-necked beer bottle maker not liable for barroom assault [August]
“Structuring”: who can get away with it, and who can’t [April]
Reluctant to recant rape accusation [May]

Some posts continue popular long after they’re published. Here are the five from previous years that drew most traffic in 2012:

The burglar and the skylight: another debunking that isn’t [2006]
Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case [2005]
Lawyers making clients worse off: Nicholas White’s elevator ride [2008]
Lawyer presidents [2008]
From comments: lawyer referral fees [2008]

Finally, here are the five 2012 posts that drew the largest number of reader comments:

He couldn’t prove it was legitimate [May]
Deaf girl’s family sues Girl Scouts for disbanding troop [August]
That treehouse has to go [January]
May 18 roundup [May]
NHTSA to mandate accelerator overrides [April]

And see also our subjective, recently concluded month-by-month list of highlights starting with January.

“Idaho inmates: The beer made us do it”

“[Keith Allen] Brown and four other inmates at Idaho’s Kuna facility are suing major beer companies, blaming their crimes on alcoholism and claiming that the companies are responsible because they don’t warn consumers that their products are addictive.” The laudatory Nicholas Kristof column practically writes itself, though one should note that the inmates “do not have attorneys and drafted the lawsuit themselves.” [Idaho Statesman]