The Rule of Law: China's Skepticism and the Rule of People

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

UNWRAPPING RACIAL HARASSMENT LAW

This article is based on a pioneering empirical study of racial harassment in the workplace in which we statistically analyze federal court opinions from 1976 to 2002. Part I offers an overview of racial harassment law and research, noting its common origin with and its close dependence upon sexual harassment legal jurisprudence. In order to put the study’s analysis in context, Part I describes the dispute resolution process from which racial harassment cases arise. Parts II and III present a clear picture of how racial harassment law has played out in the courts—who are the plaintiffs and defendants, the nature of the claims, who wins and loses, and what factors affect those outcomes. We consider dozens of characteristics of the parties, the nature of the harassment, and litigation characteristics (such as the forum, type of proceedings, and legal issues). While it reveals that individuals in all kinds of occupations, in all parts of the country, of all races, and of both genders complain about racial harassment—it also shows that African Americans are disproportionately likely to be plaintiffs. While Whites are the most likely harassers, minority individuals also are defendants. The data also discloses that the most typical legal proceeding is the court’s consideration of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment where the judges end up terminating most plaintiffs’ cases. In fact, the judicial opinions in this study find in the plaintiffs’ favor only 21.5% of the time. (In contrast, an earlier study revealed that judges in sexual harassment cases find in the plaintiffs’ favor 48% of the time – more than twice as often as in racial harassment cases.) As it turns out in racial harassment cases, the race of the plaintiff and of the alleged harasser makes a difference in the parties’ success rates, but the gender of the plaintiff does not. Judges are a bit more likely to find racial harassment when plaintiffs allege blatant racist behavior rather than more subtle and contextual racism. Results vary depending on the location of the case. Part IV provides an integrated analysis of the data, including a look at how racial harassment litigation has evolved over time. It also offers explanations and implications of the study’s results. This article contributes detailed baseline data for litigants, judges, and legislators. Each group can draw upon the totality of racial harassment cases to guide their decisionmaking. The article also offers a sound basis for creating a new racial harassment jurisprudence that should be distinct from both sexual harassment and racial discrimination jurisprudence

Comparing the Effects of Judges' Gender and Arbitrators' Gender in Sex Discrimination Cases and Why It Matters

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

Global variation in anastomosis and end colostomy formation following left-sided colorectal resection

Background End colostomy rates following colorectal resection vary across institutions in high-income settings, being influenced by patient, disease, surgeon and system factors. This study aimed to assess global variation in end colostomy rates after left-sided colorectal resection. Methods This study comprised an analysis of GlobalSurg-1 and -2 international, prospective, observational cohort studies (2014, 2016), including consecutive adult patients undergoing elective or emergency left-sided colorectal resection within discrete 2-week windows. Countries were grouped into high-, middle- and low-income tertiles according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Factors associated with colostomy formation versus primary anastomosis were explored using a multilevel, multivariable logistic regression model. Results In total, 1635 patients from 242 hospitals in 57 countries undergoing left-sided colorectal resection were included: 113 (6·9 per cent) from low-HDI, 254 (15·5 per cent) from middle-HDI and 1268 (77·6 per cent) from high-HDI countries. There was a higher proportion of patients with perforated disease (57·5, 40·9 and 35·4 per cent; P < 0·001) and subsequent use of end colostomy (52·2, 24·8 and 18·9 per cent; P < 0·001) in low- compared with middle- and high-HDI settings. The association with colostomy use in low-HDI settings persisted (odds ratio (OR) 3·20, 95 per cent c.i. 1·35 to 7·57; P = 0·008) after risk adjustment for malignant disease (OR 2·34, 1·65 to 3·32; P < 0·001), emergency surgery (OR 4·08, 2·73 to 6·10; P < 0·001), time to operation at least 48 h (OR 1·99, 1·28 to 3·09; P = 0·002) and disease perforation (OR 4·00, 2·81 to 5·69; P < 0·001). Conclusion Global differences existed in the proportion of patients receiving end stomas after left-sided colorectal resection based on income, which went beyond case mix alone

Hiding Sexual Harassment: Myths and Realities

Hiding Sexual Harassment: Myths and Realities Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 21, p. 1223, 2021 Sexual harassment and gender disparities in the workplace continue, but we are not paying enough attention. The heralded me-too movement and the publicized downfalls of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and other former luminaries might give the impression that the lid is blown off the indignities of harassment in the workplace and that American society’s collective disdain and abhorrence of harassment has quickly put an end to these incivilities. But these headline cases are just the tip of the sexual harassment iceberg; they may even give us a false sense of security and optimism. The truth is that we are not yet in that post-harassment, post-sexist era. By not candidly recognizing that and taking affirmative corrective measures, we are letting harassers and their employers get away with harassment and continue to hurt women in the workplace. This Article explores three related myths on which sexual harassment is built and allowed to continue. These myths perpetuate what we would like to believe about sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and what happens to women who complain about sexual harassment and their alleged harassers. Part I discusses the myth that gender inequality and sex discrimination are no longer prevalent. It continues by exploring the stories we tell ourselves and others to keep that myth alive. Part II discusses the myth that sexual harassment is no longer prevalent. It continues by revealing that sexual harassment very much continues and that it is intrinsically related to sex discrimination. Part III explores the myth that there is a just resolution for the courageous women who are harassed and then report it—that the men and employers responsible are identified and punished. This Article reveals instead that harassed employees are disadvantaged at every stage of the reporting and resolution process, often leading to their frustration and failure. This Article hopes to inspire conversation on these three myths and their contrary realities. By recognizing these truths, we can begin to take actions toward transforming those idealistic myths into actual realities. The Article ends in the Conclusion with proposals for achieving that future goal