Critical thinking Mini-Cases: Case 1.1 Fairness of the Law
ln 1909, the state legislature of Illinois enacted a statute called the Woman’s ten-hour Law. The law prohibited women who were employed in factories and other manufacturing facilities from working more than 10 hours per day. The law did not apply to men. W. C. Ritchie & Co., an employer, brought a lawsuit that challenged the statute as being unconstitutional, and in violation of the equal protection clause of the Illinois constitution. In upholding the statute, the Illinois Supreme Court stated,
“It is known to all men (and what we know as men we cannot profess to be ignorant of as judges) that woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal .functions place her at a great disadvantage in the battle of life; that while a man can work for more than 10 hours a day without injury to himself, a woman, especially when the burdens of motherhood are upon her, cannot; that while a man can work standing upon his feet for more than 10 hours a day, day after day, without injury to himself, a woman cannot; and that to require a woman to stand up on her feet for more than 10 hours in any one day and perform severe manual labor while thus standing, day after day, has the effect to impair her health, and that as weakly and sickly women cannot be mothers of vigorous children.
We think the general consensus of opinion, not only in this country but in the civilized countries of Europe, is, that a working day of not more than 10 hours for women is justified for the following reasons: (1) the physical organization of women, (2) her maternal function, (3) the rearing and education of children, (4) the maintenance of the home; and these conditions are, so Jar, matters of general knowledge that the courts will take judicial cognizance of their existence. Surrounded as women are by changing conditions of society, and the evolution of employment which environs them, we agree fully with what is said by the Supreme Court of Washington in the Buchanan case; “law is, or ought to be, a progressive science.” (W C. Ritchie & Co. v. Wayman, Attorney for Cook County, Illinois, 244 Ill. 509, 91 N.E. 695, 1910 Ill. Lexis 1958 (Supreme Court of Illinois)
Questions to answer (minimum 200 Works):
Is the statute fair? Would the statute be lawful today? Should the law be a “progressive science”?
Critical Legal Thinking Cases 2.1 Personal Jurisdiction
Richtone Design Group LLC (Richtone) is a New York limited liability company (LLC) that owns the copyright to the Pilates Teacher Training: Manual and licenses fitness instructors to teach Pilates exercise programs. Live Siri Art, lnc. is a California corporation owned by Siri Galliano? Rich tone learned that Live Siri Art and Galliano were selling the Pilates manual over a website for profit without permission. They sold several copies of the manual to New York residents, making only about Sl,000 in sales in Kew York from 2000 to 2012. Defendants have no office, property, or bank accounts in New York. Richtone brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against Live Siri J\rt and Gagliano in U.S. district court in New York alleging that the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in New York-based on New York’s long-arm statute. The defendants Live Siri Art and Galliano defended, alleging that they were not subject to suit in New York because they were residents of California that they did not have the requite minimum contacts with New York to be subject to suit in that state and that to make them defend the lawsuit in New York violated their due process rights. The defendants made a motion to dismiss the New York lawsuit based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. (Richtone Design Group, LLC v. Live Arc, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 157781 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2013)
Question to answer (minimum 200 Works):
Are the defendants subject to a lawsuit in New York?
Critical Legal Thinking: Case: Class Action Waiver
Arbitration is poorly suited to the higher stakes of class litigation.”
-Scalia, Justice
Class actions allow many complainants to join together to challenge legally a defendant whom they believe has harmed them under similar circumstances. Class actions have been hailed as a means for the average citizen to get redressed against large corporations who engage in
illegal activities. To curtail class actions in arbitration, many companies put class action waivers in their arbitration agreements. This prevents defendants subject to the class action waiver from joining together to pursue a single defendant in an arbitration proceeding. AT&T Mobility LLC (AT&T) includes such an arbitration agreement and class action waiver in their consumer.
contracts. When a customer brought a class action against AT&T for allegedly cheating him out of $30.22 in the purchase of a phone, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement as legal, thus denying the consumer class status. Therefore, consumers must arbitrate their claims against businesses that include class action waivers in their contracts individually and not within a class of consumers. (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 2011 U.S. Lexis 3367 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2011)
Critical Legal Thinking Questions to answer (minimum 200 Works):
Why do employers place class action waivers in their arbitration agreements?
How important is this U.S. Supreme Court decision?
Critical Legal Thinking Cases: 4.3 Supremacy Clause: The Clean Air Act,
A federal statute establishes national air pollution standards for fleet vehicles such as buses, taxicabs, and trucks. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast) is a political entity of the state of California. South Coast establishes air pollution standards for the Los Angeles, California, metropolitan area. South Coast enacted fleet rules that prohibited the purchase or lease by public and private fleet operators of vehicles that do not meet stringent air pollution standards set by South Coast. South Coast’s fleet emission standards are more stringent than those set by the federal Clean Air Act. The Engine Manufacturers Association (Association), a trade association that represents manufacturers and sellers of vehicles, sued South Coast, claiming that South Coast’s fleet rules are preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld South Coast’s fleet rules. The Association appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 541 U.S. 246, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 2004 U.S. Lexis 3232 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2004))
Questions to answer (minimum 200 Works):
Are South Coast’s fleet rules preempted by the federal Clean Air Act?
