Cyberbullying: When a Students’ Right to Free Speech Goes Too Far

Author: Jordie Bacon, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

In October 2003, Ryan Halligan, a thirteen year-old from Vermont, hung himself after his personal and embarrassing secrets were disclosed by his “friend” on AOL Instant Messenger.[1] In October 2006, Megan Meier, a thirteen year-old from Missouri, hung herself because her neighbor, disguised as a potential suitor, sent her messages on MySpace telling her Continue reading “Cyberbullying: When a Students’ Right to Free Speech Goes Too Far”

Look Policies: Can employers discriminate based on their physical attractiveness?

Author: Stephanie Scott, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

Companies with mandatory grooming or appearance standards for their employees have been under fire from society, celebrities, and the law for many years. One of the companies most known for discriminating against unattractive or overweight applicants is Abercrombie & Fitch. Consumers have been outraged that the company only hires conventionally attractive people, requires those employees to follow a strict “look policy” Continue reading “Look Policies: Can employers discriminate based on their physical attractiveness?”

THE DOUBLE EDGED SWORD: ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS AND DATA BREACHES

Author: Andrea Flaute, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

The conflict between technology and privacy does not stop at the hospital door. The emergence of a technology driven society has created a desire and push to incorporate all parts of life into electronic format, including personal health records (PHR). Although the enactment of the Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act[1] pre-dates the technology boom,[2] the privacy protections it contains compliment the electronic records provisions included in the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act.[3] Continue reading “THE DOUBLE EDGED SWORD: ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS AND DATA BREACHES”

Per Se Ban On Eyewitness Expert Testimony in Louisiana: Why the Court Should Grant Certiorari

Author: Gabriel Fletcher, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

On November 2, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari to Darrill Henry in a Louisiana case concerning eyewitness expert testimony.[1] Louisiana has a per se ban on eyewitness expert testimony.[2] Eyewitness testimony is a key component of our criminal justice system; however, a per se ban on eyewitness expert testimony is bad public policy. To reduce the rate of wrongful convictions, experts should have the opportunity to explain to jurors the pitfalls of eyewitness testimony. Continue reading “Per Se Ban On Eyewitness Expert Testimony in Louisiana: Why the Court Should Grant Certiorari”

Brady Evidence Suppression Claims: Should Courts Require Criminal Defendants to Exercise Due Diligence during Discovery?  

Author: Maxel Moreland, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

When a criminal defendant enters a court room, the court controls the future of that defendant’s liberty. With so much at stake, criminal trial procedures should not require criminal defendants to exert additional effort in procuring beneficial evidence when the prosecutor has already discovered such beneficial evidence. Continue reading “Brady Evidence Suppression Claims: Should Courts Require Criminal Defendants to Exercise Due Diligence during Discovery?  “

To Employ(ee) or Not to Employ(ee): Are Uber Drivers Employees or Independent Contractors?

Author: Gabriel Fletcher, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

Uber drivers in the state of California are challenging Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) in a class action suit, arguing that they should be classified as employees instead of independent contractors.[1] The classification of Uber’s drivers will dictate the drivers’ rights and eligibility for employment related benefits. Continue reading “To Employ(ee) or Not to Employ(ee): Are Uber Drivers Employees or Independent Contractors?”

Migratory Bird Act: What Does Taking Mean?

Author: Maxel Moreland, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to “take” protected migratory birds.[1] However, using two methods of statutory interpretation, a circuit split has developed over different definitions of “take” under the MBTA. The first, narrower interpretation from the Fifth Circuit must involve the intentional killings of migratory birds.[2] The Fifth Circuit’s analysis is the most recent interpretation of the MBTA and is the more persuasive analysis to define “take.” Continue reading “Migratory Bird Act: What Does Taking Mean?”

Substantial Burden: Religious Accommodations Under the ACA

Author: Brooke Logsdon, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review         

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court required the government to provide objecting employers with accommodations when their religious beliefs conflict with requirements of the Affordable Care Act.[1] Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby a number of circuits have held that the government accommodation for non-profit, religious organizations does not substantially burden the non-profits’ religious beliefs. Continue reading “Substantial Burden: Religious Accommodations Under the ACA”

The Food and Drug Administration: Regulation of Electronic Cigarettes

Author: Stephanie Scott, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

With so much of our daily lives being regulated by government agencies, it should come as no surprise that when a new product market emerges an administration will have something to say about it. Americans have been struggling with tobacco addictions since the early 1900s, and entrepreneurs have invented everything from hypnosis tapes, to nicotine gum, to skin patches to try and help users kick the habit. In the past few years, however, a new phenomenon has hit the states: the electronic cigarette. Continue reading “The Food and Drug Administration: Regulation of Electronic Cigarettes”

Tinker Extended: Students’ Protection or School Tyranny?

Author: Brooke Logsdon, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

Taylor Bell, a high school senior, created a rap song regarding allegations that coaches sexually harassed Bell’s classmates.[1] Hoping to raise awareness to the issue, Bell posted his rap on Facebook, where it made its way to the school community.[2] The rap identified the coaches, and contained the lyric, “You fucking with the wrong one, going to get a pistol down your mouth.”[3] Upon hearing about the rap, the school district suspended Bell for threatening a teacher—a “severe disruption” under school policy.[4] After a disciplinary hearing, the school suspended Bell for seven days and placed him in an alternative school for the remainder of the grading period.[5]

The issue is whether a school violates constitutional rights to freedom of speech Continue reading “Tinker Extended: Students’ Protection or School Tyranny?”