Carrie Menkel-Meadow: Leading Us Toward Justice and Peace

This Essay explores how Carrie Menkel-Meadow’s life and work have both highlighted the path of “And”—showing and explaining that it is not only possible but also desirable to seek justice as well as peace, to be both activist and neutral. Of course, tensions will remain. Regarding particular issues in specific moments we all must decide which path we can and should take. Which activism is best, and which goes too far? With whom can we or should we negotiate, and when should we instead say, “I can’t negotiate with this person or group”? When should we talk and listen, and when are we realistically beyond that possibility? These questions do not have simple answers, but Carrie’s life and work offer important insights

Disarming Employees: How American Employers Are Using Mandatory Arbitration to Deprive Workers of Legal Protection

Employers’ imposition of mandatory arbitration constricts employees’ access to justice. The twenty percent of the American workforce covered by mandatory arbitration clauses file just 2,000 arbitration claims annually, a minuscule number even compared to the small number of employees who litigate claims individually or as part of a class action. Exploring how mandatory arbitration prevents employees from enforcing their rights the Article shows employees covered by mandatory arbitration clauses (1) win far less frequently and far less money than employees who litigate; (2) have a harder time obtaining legal representation; (3) are often precluded from participating in class, collective or sometimes even group claims; and (4) do not fare well pro se in arbitration. Noting employers’ use of mandatory arbitration is likely increasing, the Article urges Congress to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act both to protect individual employees and also to ensure employment laws are enforced

Carrie Menkel-Meadow: Leading Us toward Justice and Peace

This Essay explores how Carrie Menkel-Meadow\u27s life and work have both highlighted the path of And -showing and explaining that it is not only possible but also desirable to seek justice as well as peace, to be both activist and neutral. Of course, tensions will remain. Regarding particular issues in specific moments we all must decide which path we can and should take. Which activism is best, and which goes too far? With whom can we or should we negotiate, and when should we instead say, I can\u27t negotiate with this person or group ? When should we talk and listen, and when are we realistically beyond that possibility? These questions do not have simple answers, but Carrie\u27s life and work offer important insights

Lawyers' Representation of Clients in Mediation: Using Economics and Psychology to Structure Advocacy in a Nonadversarial Setting

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

Mandatory Arbitration Stymies Progress Towards Justice in Employment Law: Where To, #MeToo?

Today our employment law provides workers with far more protection than once existed with respect to hiring, firing, salary, and workplace conditions. Despite these gains, continued progress towards justice is currently in jeopardy due to companies’ imposition of mandatory arbitration on their employees. By denying their employees access to court, companies are causing employment law to stultify. This impacts all employees, but particularly harms the most vulnerable and oppressed members of our society for whom legal evolution is most important. If companies can continue to use mandatory arbitration to eradicate access to court, where judges are potentially influenced by social movements, social movements will no longer be able to assist the overall progressive trend of our jurisprudence. While the phenomenon of mandatory employment arbitration is not new, recent Supreme Court opinions have encouraged an even greater number of employers to use this practice to force employees to take any disputes to arbitration, rather than to court. Focusing particularly on the #MeToo movement, this Article will consider this reality and its detrimental implications for the evolution of legal precedent affecting our most vulnerable employees

Justice in a Brave New World?

As science fiction has become reality, we should consider the implications of our new technologies for our system of justice. In addition to DNA, we are now regularly using cameras, geo-tracking, facial recognition software, brain scans, computers, and much more to discern and record our physical and mental surroundings. Existing technology and more we cannot yet imagine will increasingly take the place of often unreliable evidence, such as that provided by eyewitnesses. Yet, we have given far too little thought as to how these advances should impact our civil and criminal dispute resolution systems. Historically, many justice systems have emphasized the importance of finding the truth. Our new forms of technology will arguably help us discover the truth, and thereby potentially enhance justice. Upon reflection, however, it is not clear that our scientific innovations will necessarily yield greater truth, much less justice. The products of our technology will inevitably be subject to human interpretation and argument, and justice has always been about far more than truth. This Article argues that we should focus on three critically important issues as we consider how to redesign our system of justice to accommodate our new technology. First, recognizing that judges and jurors will often lack the competence to interpret scientific data, we should rely more heavily on neutral scientific experts. Second, in light of the psychology of multiple interpretations, we will want to ensure that our technological evidence is interpreted by a diverse audience. Third, the greatest contribution of our powerful new technology may be that it helps us recognize that justice involves much more than finding the truth. Even assuming we could agree on what happened in the past, alternative visions of justice influence how a community will want to deal with past events, such as through punishment, compensation, reparations, apology, or in other ways. By deemphasizing the centrality of truth, we can focus more on other important aspects of justice, including examining motivations, healing community rifts, enunciating community norms, providing procedural justice, protecting human rights, and providing cost-effective access to our dispute resolution system. Focusing on this broad array of concerns will encourage us to reform our litigation system in creative ways and also to rely more heavily on non-litigation approaches to justice