C|M|LAW Professor and Associate Dean Heidi Gorovitz Robertson was recognized on Friday, April 26, as the 2013 Mentor of the Year at the TRIO McNair Scholars Banquet. The McNair Scholars Program prepares undergraduate students for graduate studies through involvement in research and other scholarly activities. McNair participants are either first-generation college students with financial need, or members of a group that is traditionally underrepresented in graduate education. Each McNair student is assigned one mentor within their academic discipline and one from outside the discipline. Professor Robertson has been working with a CSU undergraduate student in environmental science for the past two years as her ‘outside of discipline’ mentor.
Congratulations to C|M|LAW Professor Michael Borden. He was selected, by a vote of the C|M|LAW student body, as “Faculty Member of the Year!”
Congratulations, also, to Ms. Holli Goodman, Administrative Assistant to the Dean. The students chose her as “Staff Member of the Year.”
C|M|LAW Professor Alan Weinstein’s article, co-authored with Brian Blaesser, The Court’s 2012 Takings Cases, was published in 41 Real Estate L.J. 512 (2013). In this article, they discuss the three takings cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term and predict that in St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012), arguably the most important of the cases, the Court will reject the claim that the Nollan/Dolan exactions test should be extended to apply to proposed conditions on development in addition to conditions that have actually been imposed.
In addition, Professor Weinstein’s article, The Ohio Supreme Court’s Perverse Stance on Development Impact Fees and What To Do About It, was published in 60 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 655 (2012). In that article, he argues that the Ohio Court’s rulings that development impact fees are lawful when enacted by municipalities but unlawful when enacted by townships is indefensible both legally and from a policy perspective and that the Ohio legislature should act to remedy the situation by enacting enabling legislation authorizing both municipalities and townships to impose development impact fees and specifying the parameters and standards for such fees.
C|M|LAW Associate Dean and Associate Professor Mark Sundahl co-authored a feature article entitled Export Control Reform: An Update in the April issue of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s Bar Journal. In the piece, Prof. Sundahl and his co-author, Jon Yormick, explain the status of the Export Control Reform Initiative undertaken by President Obama’s administration. The initiative is intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to the complex body of regulatory controls that govern the international trade of military and dual-use items. Prof. Sundahl is participating in the implementation of this initiative as the Vice-Chair of the Export Control Working Group of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee.
C|M|LAW Legal Writing Professor Karin Mika has published Privacy in the Workplace: Are Collective Bargaining Agreements a Place to Start Formulating More Uniform Standards? in the Willamette Law Review. The article suggests that current laws regarding privacy in the workplace are inadequate in dealing with technological advances that blur lines between online communication behavior that is work related and non work related. The article further suggests that most employers have the advantage as far as scrutinizing what their employees do online because there are few prohibitions on what an employer may scrutinize. Employers, furthermore, do not really have the incentive to change anything regarding their scrutiny because vagueness gives employers more of an advantage in determining what behaviors are inappropriate and subject to discipline. The article argues, however, that this might not continue to be so advantageous for employers because more and more employees are suing employers for violations of privacy or for wrongful discharge stemming from violations of online privacy. The article then suggests that it would be beneficial if employers had clearer rules for online behavior, but that it may only be through collective bargaining that some of these rules could be established. The article asserts that if unionized personnel took the initiative to protect their own online privacy rights through a collective bargaining process, this trend might carry over into the private employer realm as private employers (and employees) would begin to see the benefit if having clear rules regarding what are prohibited work related online communications.
On March 18, 2013, C|M|LAW Professor Alan Weinstien was one of three speakers in a National Teleconference on Regulating Adult Entertainment Businesses presented by the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA). The other speakers were Eric Kelly and Connie Cooper, who have written extensively on the topic. The teleconference was moderated by Professor Dan Mandelker of Washington University in St. Louis.
On Saturday, April 13, C|M|LAW Professor David Forte delivered a paper, Civility and Nihilism, at conference at John Carroll University. The theme of the conference was “Freedom of Expression vs. Respect for the Sacred.”
C|M|LAW Clinical Professor Ken Kowalski assisted attorneys from the National Employment Law Project, a national advocacy organization for employment rights of lower-wage workers, in drafting a petition for certiorari in the US Supreme Court. The petition in the case of James A. Lang [et al.] v. Director, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services was submitted March 15, 2013. The case involves the denial of certain unemployment benefits to three Ohio workers who lost their jobs when their employer transferred its manufacturing operations to Mexico. A wage subsidy program, Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, created by Congress for older workers whose jobs are terminated due to national trade policies, is administered by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services through contract with the federal Department of Labor. At issue is whether the ODJFS and DOL interpretations of the requirements for participation in the program contravened the statute itself. The Ohio Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision, ruled against the workers. The case presents interesting questions of statutory construction and deference to administrative interpretations.
The article currently is available on-line to subscribers only. This links connects to the contents of the issue. http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/
The Pepperdine Law Review has accepted C|M|LAW Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich’s article, The Rapid Rise of “Sneak and Peek” Searches, and the Fourth Amendment “Rule Requiring Notice.” The article examines delayed notice search warrants, authorized in the USA Patriot Act, permitting police to conduct covert searches of homes and businesses, only notifying the resident of the search weeks or months later. The article presents the first empirical account of the rapid rise in covert searching: from around 25 delayed notice search warrants nationwide in 2002, to over 3,700 in 2011, representing approximately ten percent of all federal search warrants. Most courts to date have held that covert searching raises no Fourth Amendment concerns. Witmer-Rich argues to the contrary, based on Fourth Amendment first principles, an historical analysis of search and seizure at the time of the founding, and a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s so-called “knock and announce” rule. In a separate article, still in progress, Witmer-Rich explains why the current statutory regime governing delayed notice search warrants has facilitated the dramatic increase in the practice of covert searching, and proposes legal reforms that would substantially limit the number of delayed notice warrants, while still preserving the technique for cases involving sufficiently compelling law enforcement interests.