The wedge hot-film anemometer in supersonic flow

A commercial wedge hot-film probe is studied to determine its heat transfer response in transonic to low supersonic flows of high unit Reynolds number. The results of this study show that its response in this flow regime differs from the response of cylindrical type sensors. Whereas the cylindrical sensor has the same sensitivity to velocity as to density for free-stream Mach numbers exceeding 1.3, the wedge probe sensitivity to velocity is always greater than its sensitivity to density over the entire flow regime. This property requires determination of three fluctuation components due to density, velocity, and temperature, in a transonic or supersonic turbulent flow. Sensitivity equations are derived based on the observed behavior of the wedge probe. Both the durability and the frequency response of the probe are excellent, the square wave insertion test indicating frequency response near 130 kHz. The directional response of the probe at sonic speed is poor and requires further examination before Reynolds stress measurements are attempted with dual sensor probes

A Modern Union for the Modern Economy

Membership in traditional unions has steeply declined over the past two decades. As the White House and Congress are now completely Republican controlled, there promises to be no reversal of this trend in the near future. In the face of this rejection of traditional bargaining efforts, several attempts have been made to create alternative “quasi-union” or “alt-labor” relationships between workers and employers. These arrangements represent a creative approach by workers to have their voices heard in a collective manner, though still falling far short of the traditional protections afforded by employment and labor law statutes. This Article critiques one such high-profile, quasi-union effort in the technology sector—the Uber Guild. While the Guild does not provide any of the traditional bargaining protections found in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it offers Uber drivers some input over the terms and conditions under which they work. Falling somewhere between employment-at-will and unionization protected under the NLRA, the Uber Guild is a creative attempt to help both workers and the company to better understand how they can improve the working relationship. This Article navigates the Uber Guild and other nontraditional efforts that promise a collective voice for workers in the face of a precipitous decline in union membership. This Article further explores how workers in the technology sector face unique challenges under workplace laws. We argue that these workers are particularly well situated to benefit from a nontraditional union model and explain what that model should look like. While a traditional union protected by the NLRA is the optimal bargaining arrangement, we must consider the enormous challenges workers in the technology sector face in obtaining these protections

Nucleation of austenite in mechanically stabilized martensite by localized heating

The nucleation of bcc austenite in a single crystal of a mechanically stabilized 2H-martensite of Cu-Al-Ni shape-memory alloy is studied. The nucleation process is induced by localized heating and observed by optical microscopy. It is observed that nucleation occurs after a time delay and that the nucleation points are always located at one of the corners of the sample (a rectangular bar in the austenite), regardless of where the localized heating is applied. Using a simplified nonlinear elasticity model, we propose an explanation for the location of the nucleation points, by showing that the martensite is a local minimizer of the energy with respect to localized variations in the interior, on faces and edges of the sample, but not at some corners, where a localized microstructure can lower the energy.Comment: Proceedings, ICOMAT 2011, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, in pres

Punitive Damages, Due Process, and Employment Discrimination

The Supreme Court has failed to provide any substantive guidance on when punitive damages are appropriate in employment discrimination cases since it issued its seminal decision in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass\u27n over twelve years ago. The Court has recently expanded its punitive damages jurisprudence in the high-profile decisions of Philip Morris USA v. Williams and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. While these cases dramatically altered the way exemplary relief is analyzed in civil cases, the extent to which these decisions apply in the workplace context remains unclear. Surprisingly, there has been almost no academic literature to date explaining how Philip Morris and Exxon impact punitive damages claims brought by employment discrimination plaintiffs. This Article seeks to fill that substantial void in the scholarship, looking specifically at the potential due process implications. Navigating the recent Supreme Court cases, this Article proposes a uniform analytical framework for analyzing punitive damages in cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The model proposed in this Article provides a blueprint for courts and litigants when considering whether punitive relief is appropriate in an employment discrimination case. If adopted, the model set forth in this Article would resolve much of the uncertainty that currently exists in the lower courts over how to apply the remedial provisions of Title VII-as interpreted through the confusing Kolstad decision-to employment discrimination claims. This Article explains how this proposed framework would bring much more efficiency to the judicial process and help define the future of workplace punitive damages

Time, Equity, and Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment remains a pervasive problem in the workplace. Recent studies and empirical research reveal that this unlawful conduct continues to pervade all industries and sectors of the economy. The #MeToo movement has made great progress in raising awareness of this problem and in demonstrating the lengths that some employers will go to conceal a hostile work environment. The movement has further identified the lasting emotional toll workplace harassment can have on its victims. The research in this area demonstrates that the short timeframe harassment victims have to bring a federal discrimination charge—180 or 300 days depending on the state—is wholly inadequate. The deception, misrepresentation, and sexual abuse encountered by many workplace harassment victims can make it impossible to file a timely charge. The pandemic has further highlighted the difficulties harassment victims can face in meeting this deadline through no fault of their own. This Article argues that the only practicable solution to this problem is a more robust application of the centuries-old doctrine of equitable tolling to pause the harassment time filing deadline where appropriate. This Article identifies five equitable tolling guideposts that the courts should consider before dismissing a sexual harassment claim on the basis of an untimely charge—psychological harm, employer threats, fear, workplace deception, and public health. This Article discusses how each of these markers may impact the timeliness of a harassment claim and explains when the use of equitable tolling may be appropriate. Given the extensive research in this area, as well as our expanded understanding of the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in the workplace, employers should no longer be permitted to run out the clock on these claims through their own improper conduct

Understanding the Unrest of France’s Younger Workers: The Price of American Ambivalence

The youth of France refer to themselves as the “throwaway generation,” in part because they perceive that their value to the labor market is simply disregarded by the government. Against this backdrop, young French workers recently took to the streets in riot to protest a newly enacted employment law that stripped employees under the age of twenty-six of many of their employment protections. The protests persisted after the French Constitutional Council held that the law did not violate France\u27s constitution. The continued violent opposition ultimately forced French President Jacques Chirac to abandon the law, resulting in an embarrassing defeat for the government. Through unified action, French students, accompanied by union support, had forced the government to back away from a law that the youth perceived would limit their employment rights. In the United States, Congress has passed similar legislation affording greater employment protections to older workers. The U.S. Supreme Court has also recently acted in General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, to make clear that protection from age discrimination in employment was intended for older, rather than younger, employees. Even more recently, in Smith v. City of Jackson, the Court further restricted the employment protections of all employees on the basis of age. In response to this legislation and these Court decisions limiting their employment rights, however, American youth have remained silent — their complacency standing in stark contrast to the reaction of French youth. By failing to act, young American workers have permitted the erosion of their employment rights. This article examines the structure and social context of employment law in France and the United States in an effort to explain the disparate reaction of the youth to similar labor laws and court decisions. The article provides a detailed analysis of relevant age-related legislation in each country, and examines the reasoning behind the recent French Constitutional Council and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The article concludes that the different reactions of youth in France and the United States can be explained by three factors: (1) the varying unemployment rates between the two countries; (2) the different role that unions play in France and the United States; and (3) the fact that the French government, as opposed to the United States government, has a recent history of acquiescing to the demands of youth. The article proposes that by finding a collective voice, American youth — through peaceful means — can act to ensure that their employment protections are not limited any further. Ambivalence is simply not an answer

Plausibility and Disparate Impact

In Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 644 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court introduced a new plausibility pleading standard, abrogating well-established precedent. Under this standard, a plaintiff must now allege enough facts in the complaint to state a plausible claim to relief. Twombly and Iqbal transformed civil procedure law, and both the courts and litigants have struggled with its meaning. One area that has been dramatically affected by these recent decisions is the field of workplace discrimination. There are two types of employment discrimination claims – intentional (or disparate treatment) and unintentional (or disparate impact) discrimination. The academic scholarship is replete with discussions of the problems that the plausibility standard has created for victims alleging disparate treatment claims. Discriminatory intent is difficult to establish, and this is particularly true where a plaintiff has not had access to discovery. One area that has remained unexplored in the academic literature, however, is the effect of Twombly and Iqbal on disparate impact cases. This Article seeks to fill that void in the scholarship. This paper closely examines the two most likely approaches for applying the plausibility standard to unintentional discrimination claims. This paper offers an analytical framework for considering these claims under either standard, and explains why a more streamlined approach to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions is preferable. Navigating Twombly, Iqbal and other Supreme Court decisions, this paper explains how the plausibility standard should be applied to unintentional discrimination cases. This Article provides a blueprint for the courts and litigants to follow when considering a disparate impact claim, and addresses the implications of adopting the proposed approach. Twombly and Iqbal represent a sea change for workplace plaintiffs, and this Article attempts – for the first time – to make sense of these decisions in one of the most complex areas of employment discrimination law