ISSUES AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN PRISONER LITIGATION: A CRITICAL VIEW*

In the past quarter-century, the number of suits filed by prisoners in federal courts has substantially increased. Critics have borrowed metaphors from ballistics or pathologv to describe this increase as an “epidemic” of “legal pollution” or an “explosion.” The causes of this “hyperlexis,” or excessive litigation, are often attributed to prisoners' attempts to retry their cases once they have lost, or to some psychological attribute of plaintiffs who view litigation as a means of striking back at their keepers. This paper examines several common conceptions of prisoner litigation. National ling data from federal district courts are used to assess the merits of each. The data provide little support for many of the conceptions of and explanations for prisoner suits. It is suggested that prisoners' use of courts may be a form of social resistance to conditions for which there is no other legitimate avenue for relief:     

Systematic construction of lawfulness of processing employees’ personal information under China's personal information protection law

With the rapid development and widespread use of digital technologies in the workplace in China, employers’ right to monitor and direct employees has often been abused, raising a number of disputes over the infringement of employees’ right to privacy in terms of their personal information. China must urgently develop an appropriate approach to balancing these two conflicting interests. However, there is currently no coherent and uniform regime governing the protection of employees’ personal information in China. The primary legal source on which employers can rely is the latest version of the Chinese Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which offers three lawful bases for employers’ processing of their employees’ personal information. These bases are employee consent; “necessity for the conclusion or performance of an employment contract”; and “necessity for conducting human resource management.” Concerns have been expressed regarding the reasonableness and effectiveness of the three lawful bases under the PIPL. First, it is both legally and practically problematic for the PIPL to rely so heavily on employee consent. Second, it is unclear whether the other two lawful bases relieve employers of the duty of notification and, if so, how to safeguard employees’ right to know. Third, the ambiguous standard of “necessity” requires clarification.This article argues that China should adopt many elements from EU law, while US law should be only followed in relation to the standard of “necessity”. In relation to employee consent, the EU approach is preferable to the US approach. As the EU approach does not generally regard employees’ consent as a lawful basis for the processing of their information and uses the other two lawful bases as alternatives to employee consent, this approach better reflects the customary practices of employee subordination and employer control in China. In contrast, US law deems employee consent to be an absolute general defense to the tort of privacy violation and adopts an employer favoritism approach to balancing these two conflicting interests, which is not appropriate in the Chinese context. In relation to the scope of necessity, three tests taken from the EU and US approaches should be considered by the Chinese courts. In addition, when processing personal information based on the other two lawful bases, employers should safeguard employees’ right to know through collective contracts concluded with labor unions or employee representatives under the Chinese Labor Contract Law, which would effectively address employers’ arbitrariness. Ultimately, these changes would produce a better balance between employees’ right to privacy in terms of their personal information and employers’ need to subordinate and control employees.     

行政诉讼中民事诉讼规范之“适用”——基于《行政诉讼法》第101条展开的分析

行政诉讼与民事诉讼之间的关系决定了行政诉讼中民事诉讼规范有一定的适用空间。在我国,民事诉讼规范在行政诉讼中的适用,经历了适用——参照——适用的一个制度史变迁过程。2015年经修正后实施的《行政诉讼法》第101条规定了民事诉讼规范在行政诉讼中的适用,其内容可以分为“诉讼程序”和“检察监督程序”两部分。在“诉讼程序”中,立法以“等”作不完全列举的例示性规定。从判例中我们可以看到,与原告法定代表人资格确定、二审裁判方式等相关的民事诉讼规范,也都在可以“适用”之列。毕竟,行政诉讼和民事诉讼的立法目的各异,所以,在行政诉讼中适用民事诉讼规范,应当确立不抵触立法目的和补充性两条规则。     

Freedom of information versus the National Security Council: Obscuring the focus of the “sole‐function” test

After years of litigation in the federal court system, investigator Scott Armstrong lost in his attempt to gain access to documents held by the National Security Council, which successfully argued that it was not an “agency” required by the Freedom of In formation Act to produce records. The effect of such a finding is profound, as “nonagencies” are not only categorically exempt from all FOIA requirements but also freed from obligations by other statutory demands for accountability. This article uses the NSC litigation to demonstrate how the test to determine whether an entity should be classified as an agency, commonly referred to as the “sole‐function” test, has been altered in fundamental ways by recent court opinions. This changing focus makes it easier for many other entities, particularly those in the Executive Office of the President where many of the most important domestic and international decisions are made, to avoid agency status and escape the obligations imposed by Congress regarding disclosure, keeping and disposal of records.     

我国“或裁或审”条款的反思与突破——兼评《仲裁法司法解释》第7条

由于没有明确的立法规定,“或裁或审”条款的性质与类型在认定上十分模糊,因此各级人民法院经常在该问题上产生混乱。例如,“或裁或审”条款与“一裁终局”条款相混淆,多份协议与单一协议中的“或裁或审”条款相模糊,以及对《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》(以下简称《仲裁法司法解释》)第7条的理解不一致等。虽然最高人民法院发布的司法解释或指导性案例能为各级人民法院在“或裁或审”条款的性质与类型的定性中提供指引,但并不能从根本上解决《仲裁法司法解释》第7条中对于仲裁协议无效的规定。纵观各国对于既约定仲裁又约定诉讼的条款的态度,我国对于仲裁无效的判定过于严厉,这与我国正在推进建立亚太国际仲裁中心的政策考量不入。只有对法律制度的突破与变更才能在实质上修正立法的滞后性。先管辖先受理原则的借鉴,不仅可以为维护当事人意思自治提供出路,而且可以为我国鼓励与支持仲裁的发展消弭弊端。     

Anticompetitive Employment

Scholars, antitrust agencies, and policy makers have historically paid little attention to anticompetitive practices in labor markets. This was largely due a misconception that antitrust law is meant to govern conventional markets in which goods and services trade, rather than govern labor markets. Antitrust law may also offer a poor remedy to redress employers who enter no-poaching agreements or otherwise impair competition. The primary tension involves antitrust's purpose, which is to promote “consumer welfare.” To identify whether conduct eroded consumer welfare, courts tend to scrutinize whether prices increased. But here, lessening wages can enable firms to sell goods at cheaper prices, benefiting consumers. Another issue is that the typical restraint affects only a smattering of workers instead of lessening wages throughout the greater market. This article uses empirical analyses to show that antitrust should promote labor's welfare as it does consumer welfare, and it argues that enforcement must condemn labor cartels as per se illegal. The research demonstrates that labor cartels are more pernicious than restraints in product markets, as employers can lessen wages with less effort than in product markets. Antitrust should even proscribe no-poaching agreements formed for a legitimate purpose (e.g., to protect trade secrets) because employers could have achieved the same goals using less coercive means; the noncompete agreement, at least, provides labor with a semblance of notice and bargaining power without drawing antitrust scrutiny. The prohibition of labor cartels would thus promote competition and consumer welfare, especially in minimum wage labor markets.     

ANALYZING AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT CASES

This article discusses the application of content analysis to judicial decisions. A methodology is presented for analyzing Age Discrimination in Employment Act decisions in the federal courts. Frequency distributions are presented that demonstrate that most of the cases have been brought on behalf of white males in professional/managerial occupations. These cases arose when the employee was terminated and were successfully defended by employers.     

Organizational downsizing and age discrimination litigation: the influence of personnel practices and statistical evidence on litigation outcomes

The present study examined relationships between reduction-in-force (RIF) personnel practices, presentation of statistical evidence, and litigation outcomes. Policy capturing methods were utilized to analyze the components of 115 federal district court opinions involving age discrimination disparate treatment allegations and organizational downsizing. Univariate analyses revealed meaningful links between RIF personnel practices, use of statistical evidence, and judicial verdict. The defendant organization was awarded summary judgment in 73% of the claims included in the study. Judicial decisions in favor of the defendant organization were found to be significantly related to such variables as formal performance appraisal systems, termination decision review within the organization, methods of employee assessment and selection for termination, and the presence of a concrete layoff policy. The use of statistical evidence in ADEA disparate treatment litigation was investigated and found to be a potentially persuasive type of indirect evidence. Legal, personnel, and evidentiary ramifications are reviewed, and a framework of downsizing mechanics emphasizing legal defensibility is presented.     

Health reform and employee health benefits programs

The impact of health reform on employee health benefits programs could be dramatic. Depending on the health reform program adopted, employers could face significant new regulatory and economic burdens in operating employee health benefits programs or could find themselves greatly relieved of such burdens. President Clinton's proposal, in particular, would dramatically alter today's practices. This article focuses on how the Clinton proposal would change employee health benefits programs. Although President Clinton has indicated a willingness to compromise, his legislation may prove to be a house of cards, with all provisions interdependent. Employers should study all pending proposals carefully and weigh in on the debate so as to ensure that lawmakers are fully educated before making potentially irreversible decisions.     

The struggle over retiree medical benefits: who's on top?

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of litigation addressing an employer's right to unilaterally amend or terminate medical benefits provided to retirees. The sheer volume of these cases and the variety of facts and legal theories have combined to obscure the patterns and trends that actually are emerging from this litigation. This article will describe the context of the struggle over retiree benefits and discuss those leading decisions in which the federal courts of appeals have established their rules for deciding retiree benefits cases.     

重构我国行政诉讼原告资格制度的思考

基于对我国行政诉讼制度发展现状的考虑 ,我国行政诉讼类型目前宜划分为撤销诉讼、确认诉讼、履行诉讼等三类。在此基础上 ,可借鉴美国的“事实损害标准”确立一种以“权益损害”为基本标准 ,视诉讼类型的不同而起诉条件各异 ,并辅之以“案例规则”为适当补充的原告资格制度基本框架。在三种诉讼类型中 ,撤销诉讼的原告资格最为宽泛 ,确认诉讼的原告资格要窄于撤销诉讼 ,履行诉讼的原告资格最易于确定。     

The insider threat and employee privacy: An overview of recent case law

The detection of insider threats is one area of ongoing work at the CERT^® Insider Threat Center. This paper addresses the legal landscape surrounding employee privacy in the workplace. While this broad area implicates many different types of law, this paper focuses on some current issues that employers may want to be aware of when implementing policies and practices to mitigate the insider threat, including monitoring of current employees. Electronic, physical and other methods of monitoring are discussed, which can reveal insider threat indicators. Relevant federal and state laws are also discussed.¹     

The Biggest “Have” of Them All: Wal‐Mart and Its Litigation Outcomes in Slip‐and‐Fall Cases

Scholars have theorized that resource‐rich litigants known as the “haves” tend to succeed disproportionately in litigation when the adverse party is a “have‐not.” The traditional theory suggests that haves are able to use their wealth to secure better attorney representation and can use their frequent experience in litigation to tip the scales of justice in their favor, particularly when faced with “one‐shotters” whose involvement in litigation is infrequent. A remaining question, however, is whether some haves fare better than other similarly situated haves. Specifically, this article posits that the litigation strategy used by the defendant may also play a role in litigation outcomes. Companies that tenaciously fight claims that, in the short term, would be cheaper to settle might discourage otherwise valid claims in the future from being filed out of fear that the litigation will be a protracted battle. This article examines Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal‐Mart)—the largest revenue‐generating company in the United States—to explore whether it fares better than other resource‐rich defendants. Wal‐Mart in particular has a reputation against settling cases and thus is an excellent vehicle to investigate this hypothesis. Appellate cases in an eleven‐year period involving slip‐and‐fall litigation were compiled, and the results show that Wal‐Mart did win at a higher rate than other defendants. Although more research is needed to explore fully the effect of litigation strategy on win–loss rates, this sample of cases demonstrates that Wal‐Mart is a more effective and victorious litigant.     

"Reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act--what does it mean?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) imposes on employers the duty to afford qualified disabled applicants and employees "reasonable accommodation," but provides minimal guidance as to the range of actions necessary to fulfill this duty. Under the statutory scheme, required accommodations will vary from employer to employer, from worksite to worksite for the same employer, and perhaps even from employee to employee at the same worksite. Personnel managers will be required to make very fact-specific decisions in each case as to whether to offer particular accommodations, with any decision declining to provide the accommodation subject to attack in litigation. Based on an analysis of how similar reasonable accommodation requirements have been interpreted under other statutes, this article analyzes the likely parameters of the duty to afford reasonable accommodation under the ADA and offers specific suggestions for employers to minimize their risk of liability.     

美国行政程序证据规则分析

美国行政程序证据规则独立于民事和刑事诉讼证据规则。1946年联邦行政程序法对行政程序证据规则作出原则规定,联邦法院一系列判例丰富和发展了行政程序证据规则。行政官员裁决案件不受联邦证据规则约束,不受传闻证据规则约束,但须符合实质证据规则的要求,受案卷排他原则约束。行政程序中提供证据是当事人的权利,也是当事人的责任,除法律另有规定外,任何证据都可接受。行政程序证明责任分配原则采用"谁主张谁举证"。     

Fair Share Housing for Managed Growth

The Mt. Laurel decision represents the culmination of judicial thinking in exclusionary zoning type litigation. Implicit in decisions striking down local land use controls found to be “exclusionary” in nature has been the notion that a community has a legal duty to accept a “fair share” of the housing needs of the region. Fair share housing now begins to take on some substance with the New Jersey court's decision. Similar language on responsibilities for regional needs may be found in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in Kit-Mar and Girsh, and in the federal district court's opinion in Petaluma.     

Enabling Exploitation: Law in the Gig Economy

This article describes the almost total failure of legal systems to criminalize, regulate or restrict the crimes of capitalism and its institutions in the “uber/gig” economy. It examines how the technologically-enabled theft of time, space and wages from employees has been normalized and even celebrated. These unregulated excesses have exacerbated political, cultural and economic inequality and threatened or destroyed quality of life for millions. To understand why and how these harmful practices have attracted so little regulatory or criminal attention, the article examines how neoliberal capitalism, in its constant search for new ways to outsource costs and maximize profits, intersects with the democratic state and its professed obligation to prevent capital from “going too far” at the expense of citizens of that state.     

论民事诉讼中的违法公民代理——《民事诉讼法》第58条的漏洞与完善

由于2012年的《民事诉讼法》限制委托代理人范围的规定,导致超出该范围的委托成为"违法公民代理"。在否定委托行为法律效力时,基于委托代理制度的功能及程序安定要求等多种因素考虑,应当肯定后续诉讼行为的效力。为防止"违法公民代理"发生,应对判断委托代理人资格至关重要的"近亲属"标准予以明确化,并通过配套机制,促使相关人员配合法院完成对委托代理人资格的审查。     

Maternal Filicide in Turkey

Filicide occurs in every socioeconomic stratum around the world. This study was conducted to evaluate motives, psychopathological aspects, and socio-demographic factors of 74 filicide cases of women in Turkey. Mean age of mothers, most of whom committed infanticide, was 26 years, and breakdown of criminal offenses are as follows: “to get rid of unwanted babies” (24.3%), “acute psychotic-type filicide” (21.6%), “fatal child abuse and neglect” (17.6%), “to get revenge” (12.2%), “protect the lonely child from the harm and badness after suicide” (10.8%), and “pity” (9.5%) motives. Results showed that maternal filicide cannot be reduced to only mental instability or environmental factors and indicates deficiencies in the capacity of the mothers' role in connecting with their child and with parenting skills. Finally, with regard to defendants' motives, similar factors that contribute to committing maternal filicide should be considered while making an assessment of the data and determining employee risk groups.