Notes

Civil Rights- Municipalities as Parties- Waiver of Sovereign Immunity by a State does not Give a Federal Cause of Action for Damages under Sections 1983 and 1988 of the Civil Rights Act: This Note evaluates the Supreme Court\u27s holding in Moor v. Alameda with reference to the development of sections 1983 and 1988 of the Civil Rights Act through other relevant case law, such as Monroe v. Pape and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs. It then summarizes the holding, which limits persons deprived of civil rights by a municipal employee and who are seeking damages from the municipality in federal court to two approaches- pendent and diversity jurisdiction. Constitutional Law- Equal Protection- School District\u27s Failure to Teach Chinese Speaking Students the English Language Does Not Constitute a Violation of the Equal Protection Clause: This Note summarizes Lau v. Nichols, a class action brought to compel the San Francisco Unified School District to provide Chinese speaking students who did not speak English with some instruction in the English language. It then analyzes other recent cases regarding equal protection in the context of social welfare issues, including Dandridge v. Williams and Brown v. Board of Education, to address the issue presented in Lau v. Nichols. Environmental Law- Non-Degradation- Clean Air Act and Amendments Held to Mandate a Policy Prohibiting Significant Deterioration of Air Quality in Areas of Relatively Clean Air: This Note analyzes the Clean Air Act and the impact of litigation brought by the Sierra Club against the Administrator of the EPA for permitting deterioration of air quality in areas where air quality was better than federally mandated secondary standards. Grand Jury- Secrecy of Testimony- Protection Afforded by Traditional Rule of Secrecy is Waived by a Witness Who Seeks Disclosure: This Note analyzes the history and case law regarding grand juries and disclosure of grand jury testimony in light of the case In re Biaggi involving the release of a United States Congressman\u27s grand jury testimony. It also discusses the public interest ramifications of full disclosure, attempts to misuse the secrecy of the grand jury, and the expansion of the scope of permissible disclosure to requests not made in connection with a judicial proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)

Defense Access to Grand Jury Testimony: A Right in Search of a Standard

Although it had been previously recognized that a defendant was entitled to inspect grand jury testimony in certain circumstances, in Dennis v. United States the Supreme Court first granted disclosure on the ground that sufficient particularized need had been shown. Although failing to clarify adequately the constituents of this verbal formula or to define fully the procedure to be utilized, the Court nevertheless clearly implied a disposition toward liberal disclosure. In light of the lack of substantive specificity in Dennis, subsequent lower court interpretations have generally emphasized the permissive tenor of the opinion to promulgate rules of automatic disclosure in certain factual situations. These rules, however, differ greatly in scope and rationale. Consequently, the defendant to a federal indictment remains unable to invoke any uniform standard by which his access to a grand jury transcript may be determined. It is arguable that the confusion of the present law may be remedied by providing the defendant with recourse to a standard of disclosure based upon constitutional principles mandating due process in criminal proceedings rather than solely upon judicial discretion

Government panel on corporate governance : summary of recommendations

The institutionalization and internationalization of shareholdings, the globalization of capital markets and the rapid development of information technologies have placed our corporate law system under increasing pressure to adapt to the ever changing requirements of the market. For this reason, in May 2000, the German government called together a group of industrialists, representatives of shareholder associations and institutional investors, trade unionists, politicians and scholars to form an expert Panel with the task of reviewing the German corporate governance system. This Government Panel on Corporate Governance prepared a questionnaire on key issues in the field, and solicited responses and input from numerous national and international experts and institutions. In July 2001, the Commission presented its 320 page report (available at www.ottoschmidt. de/corporate_governance.htm) to the German Chancellor. The Report made nearly 150 recommendations for amendments or changes to existing provisions of German law and also set forth proposals on how the German corporate governance system should be further developed in order to maintain a normative framework that is suitable and attractive not only for companies, but also for domestic and foreign investors. In order that the Panel s proposals may receive careful consideration from a diverse audience, it seems very useful to keep a wider public informed of the Panel s recommendations. Therefore, also on behalf of the Panel, I very much appreciate that the international law firm Shearman & Sterling has taken the initiative to have the summary of the Panel s recommendations translated into English

Diversity As A Trade Secret

When we think of trade secrets, we often think of famous examples such as the Coca-Cola formula, Google’s algorithm, or McDonald’s special sauce used on the Big Mac. However, companies have increasingly made the novel argument that diversity data and strategies are protected trade secrets. This may sound like an unusual, even suspicious, legal argument. Many of the industries that dominate the economy in wealth, status, and power continue to struggle with a lack of diversity. Various stakeholders have mobilized to improve access and equity, but there is an information asymmetry that makes this pursuit daunting. When potential plaintiffs and other diversity advocates request workforce statistics and related employment information, many companies have responded with virulent attempts to maintain secrecy, including the use of trade secret protection. In this Article, I use the technology industry as an example to examine the trending legal argument of treating diversity as a trade secret. I discuss how companies can use this tactic to hide gender and race disparities and interfere with the advancement of civil rights law and workplace equity. I argue that instead of permitting companies to hide information, we should treat diversity data and strategies as public resources. This type of open model will advance the goals of equal opportunity law by raising awareness of inequalities and opportunities, motivating employers to invest in effective practices, facilitating collaboration on diversity goals, fostering innovation, and increasing accountability for action and progress