Using a “Bystander Bounty” to Encourage the Reporting of Workplace Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment has become a fact of the modern workplace – something that society laments and regrets, but that rarely shocks the conscience when it comes to light. In fact, both the least and most surprising aspect about workplace sexual harassment is the number of individuals who are aware of it occurring: For every Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, and Louis CK, there have been countless observers who knew about their depravity and who did nothing to stop their behavior. In this way, one obvious approach for reducing harassment at work seems clearly to involve mobilizing these bystanders – encouraging those who witness this misconduct to come forward and report the wrongdoing. Yet for a variety of reasons, bystanders often (quite rationally) choose to remain silent.This article suggests a novel approach for overcoming the forces inhibit bystanders from speaking out. In the context of financial crimes, the law has successfully encouraged bystander reporting by applying a bounty system that provides significant financial rewards to those who report the wrongdoing that they observe. Indeed, those who have observed financial wrongdoing have reaped millions of dollars in rewards, presumably overcoming whatever reluctance they once may have felt about disclosing the misdeeds of colleagues and associates. This article suggests applying a similar bounty system to workplace sexual harassment: It proposes awarding bystanders a piece of the recovery when their reports of observed workplace sexual harassment culminate into successful lawsuits against the perpetrators of this misconduct.Blowing the whistle on wrongdoing – harassment or otherwise – comes rife with countless concerns for those who consider speaking out. Giving such bystanders a financial incentive to come forward has worked in other contexts to override this reluctance. Perhaps the same can be true for those who observe sexual harassment at work, providing a much-needed step towards reducing this scourge on the workplace

The Case against Regional Transmission Monopolies

Over the next decade, the United States will need to build significant regional transmission infrastructure to achieve the country’s goal of net-zero power by 2035. However, there is a significant barrier: the transmission system is almost entirely owned by private monopolies. As a result, the grid has grown not to serve the public interest but in accordance with the economic priorities of these monopolies, which are not incentivized to innovate, find efficiencies, or lower costs. Past attempts to encourage competitive bidding for regional transmission projects have been stymied by laws intended to protect the monopolies, including the right of first refusal (ROFR) to build regional transmission lines. After years of legal battles over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) removal of the federal ROFR, a circuit split has emerged over whether state ROFRs violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. This Article argues that the circuit split obscures the stronger legal analysis, which is that FERC’s withdrawal of the federal ROFR was within its exclusive jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act and thus renders state ROFRs per se invalid. Additionally, FERC must maintain the withdrawal of the federal ROFR despite monopoly pressure, as doing so would result in the blanket removal of both federal and state ROFRs. Lifting the gatekeeping effects of the ROFRs would finally allow more robust competition for regional transmission projects and facilitate building the decarbonized grid we need

Shortlisted: A Conversation Between Judge Diane Wood, Renee Knake Jefferson, and Hannah Brenner Johnson

This article includes an edited excerpt from the introduction to Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court and a discussion with the book\u27s authors led by Judge Diane Wood, a senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. They discuss the book, the women who were passed over for seats on the Court, and the lessons their stories offer — for women judges and the legal profession as a whole

Real Estate Trends: Title and Blockchain Technology

This article discusses how blockchain technology could revolutionize real property title record-keeping, or not. It begins with a brief history of property transfers and title registry in the United States, followed by a basic overview of blockchain technology. Then it outlines how title is typically recorded today, including the role of traditional grantor-grantee indexes, plus less common tract indexes. It describes common title problems, often caused by human error, and exacerbated by an outdated system, together with an explanation of how blockchain and even tract indexes could eliminate or mitigate many title problems and simplify an antiquated system. The article shares various agencies’ studies and experiences using blockchain for land transfers or title registry, and lessons learned. That leads to a broader discussion of blockchain benefits and drawbacks for title registries. It concludes that the costs associated with making a wholesale transition to blockchain does not presently justify such transition, even though blockchain has the potential to simplify indexing, enhance security, and reduce title errors. However, many problems could be avoided or resolved through uniform adoption of tract indexes which would require universal adoption of e-recording and digital documents

Regulatory Choices and Legal Disputes in the Fight Against COVID-19 Infections in the Workplace

This is a comparative study of two countries’ legal and policy actions to stem the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace, focusing on Italy and the United States (US). Both nations sustained great loss of life and high infection rates during the first years of the pandemic. This chapter examines how Italy and the US approached COVID-19 vaccine mandates for workers. Of particular interest are the regulatory choices made, including the choice not to regulate, and the consequences of those choices on the employment relationship. Additionally revealing are the legal grounds upon which regulatory actions were challenged, and how courts balanced the interests at stake. Finally, the way in which the debates over workplace vaccine mandates were framed illuminate national culture and the extent to which each country views labor rights as human rights. To provide context for these insights, this chapter examines convergence and divergence in the two countries’ initial responses to the global health emergency presented by COVID-19, and the way in which workplace vaccine mandates were initially embraced