The Fourth Amendment provides a fundamental protection against unreasonable searches by the police. The difficulty is in deciding what’s unreasonable. The Supreme Court ruled that Missouri police cannot routinely take a blood sample from someone suspected of drunk driving. The problem is that the court did not explain when, exactly, the police can demand a blood test. This kind of decision is all too common from this Supreme Court. It decides that there was wrongdoing in the particular case before it, but does not establish a set of rules for future cases, which inevitably leads to case by case decision-making until rules develop by default. C’mon, just tell us what the rule is!
A longer article about Missouri v. McNeely is here. The case is here.
It is hard to hurt some peoples’ feelings. Last year, at 41 companies, more than half the shareholders withheld their vote from some of the company’s directors. Untroubled by this vote of no confidence, all of these directors stayed on the boards. What does a shareholder have to do to affect the makeup of a board?
For a longer article about this issue, read here.
Administrative Law: Court requires FDA to permit the sale of the “morning after pill” over the counter to all ages
A federal judge overturned the FDA’s rule that required girls under age 17 to have a prescription for buying Plan B, a morning after pill. Courts generally give great deference to the decisions of administrative agencies, but here the judge ruled that the FDA’s rules were “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable”. Further, said the court, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, had made the decision for political, not scientific reasons. The FDA must now remove any age restrictions on the sale of Plan B.
Read the judge’s order here.
What is the cost to society when women and minorities are discriminated against? Professors from Stanford and the University of Chicago have attempted to answer this question. They estimate that 15 to 20% of the growth in productivity in the U.S. between 1960 and 2008 was owing to the expanded employment opportunities for women and minorities. Productivity would be even higher (10 to 15%) if all employment discrimination ended.
See the Wall Street Journal article here or the original article here.
Three years ago, Wal-Mart planned to open 22 stores in India. In the event, it has only 5 stores. According to the Wall Street Journal, one of the major reasons for the delay is the company’s refusal to make payments in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Having been accused of paying bribes in Mexico, Wal-Mart is determined not to violate the FCPA in India. Experienced compliance lawyers say that if a company wants to comply with the FCPA, it must accept the fact that it will be foreclosed from some markets.
Read the full article here.
Traditionally, ethics discussions focused on a utilitarian versus a deontological approach. Utilitarianism assesses the results of an action, whereas a deontological approach is concerned with doing the right thing, regardless of the consequences. However, the latest research on ethics reveals that our approach to making ethical decisions is heavily affected by what’s going on around us. For example, when people are rushed or under stress, they are less likely to make an ethical choice. Therefore, when making an ethical decision, it is even more important to remember to stop, think and consult others first.
Read the full article here.
The Impact of the 2008 Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act: more success for plaintiffs
The 2008 Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act expanded the definition of a disability. As a result, the number of cases has increased and so has their success rate. In 2012, more than one quarter of EEOC charges included a disability claim. Because disability claims are now more likely to survive a summary judgment motion, settlement values have also gone up.
Moreover, more employers have been penalized for failing to establish acceptable accommodation plans because they tend to think in terms of “one-size fits all” rather than individually tailoring accommodation to a worker’s specific disability issues.
Read the entire article here.
Consumers are entitled to obtain a free credit report every year. But what they really want is to know their credit score. Under current law, they don’t have a right to that for free (although both the House and Senate have bills pending that would give consumers the right to this information once a year). Credit scores are important, because that is typically what lenders use to decide about loans and interest rates. But different organizations use different scores — FICO and VantageScore are the two most common. Understanding your credit picture is not easy. And that’s the way credit reporting companies like it because they can earn lots selling this info to consumers.
Read the entire article here.
The ADA applies to places of “public accommodation” such as restaurants, hotels, stores and movie theaters. But what about websites? A federal district court ruled that Target’s website was a place of public accommodation because it served as an entry to its physical stores. And a federal district court judge in MA has ruled that the ADA applies to Netflix, a website only business. It seems that, ultimately, web retail businesses will, voluntarily or otherwise, make their sites accessible.
Read the full article here.
Companies worry about this issue and often have lengthy policies. The short answer is that one bottle of champagne does not a bribe make. The Department of Justice says that it focuses on ”single instances of large, extravagant gift-giving (such as sports cars, fur coats and luxury items).” Still, some commentators argue that there is no bright line and weekly deliveries of champagne or tickets to sporting events may, indeed, be illegal.
Read more here.