Restitution for Victims of North Carolina’s Involuntary Sterilization Program Does Not Mark the End of American Eugenics Laws

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,
By James Bowden

On Tuesday, a task force in North Carolina concluded that it would request restitution of $50,000 from the North Carolina legislature to each of the estimated 1,500-2,000 living victims of the state’s formal 45-year experiment with eugenics. As recently as 1974, people deemed “undesirable” by North Carolina authorities (most often minorities, women, the mentally ill, and the impoverished) were subjected to involuntary sterilization.

This is unfortunately just the last page of one chapter in the history of America’s experimenting with the practice of eugenics. Much like the fact that almost 150 years after the ratification of the 13th Amendment the United States still struggles to annihilate human trafficking and slavery within its borders, most Americans are unaware of the history of eugenics and forced sterilization in the United States.

The practice also has a rather dark history with the U.S. Supreme Court, which, when given the opportunity, granted the practice purported constitutionality. In what was almost certainly the worst opinion of his career (and ranking as one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, along with the Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson) Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr. declared that “three generations of imbeciles is enough,” upholding the constitutionality of the sterilization of Carrie Buck, a Virginia woman who had been institutionalized as “feeble minded,” in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Later scholarship indicates that Carrie had likely been raped by a successful doctor who employed her as his housekeeper and insisted on her being committed to protect himself, was institutionalized by her ne’er do well mother, and received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial from an attorney who had inexcusable conflicts of interest and who may have deliberately lost the case. Nonetheless, Carrie Buck lost her petition before the US Supreme Court in an eight-to-one decision and was sterilized against her will upon her return to Virginia. Her daughter, Emma, whom Holmes regarded as the third generation of imbeciles, was perfectly normal and did well in school. The eugenics expert that recommended Carrie’s sterilization went on to be honored by the Nazis for drafting Germany’s “Race Hygiene” law, the direct legal progenitor of the Holocaust.

Following Buck v. Bell, eugenic sterilization laws were passed by an increasing number of states, and by 1956 27 states had sterilization laws on the books. Even after Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) prevented the application of compulsory sterilization to convicted criminals under a statute that excluded white-collar crimes on equal protection grounds, the practice continued. Eugenics fell out of favor in the U.S. after the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the Holocaust and subsequent defenses raised by war criminals at Nuremburg, some of which cited American eugenics practices as evidence of the permissibility of genocide, but the statutes remained on the books across the country. In North Carolina, the practice continued until 1974. Oregon maintained a Board of Social Protection (f/k/a the Oregon Board of Eugenics) until 1983.

Here’s the kicker – under existing American constitutional law, forced sterilization is technically constitutional. The most recent case, Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital, 518 F. Supp 789 (W.D. Va 1981), found that sterilization did not violate constitutional rights.  At least as a technical matter, the law of the land still tolerates the involuntary sterilization of some of the most helpless among us.

Currently rated 4.8 by 4 people

  • Currently 4.75/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Don’t Worry about “Holiday Networking” – Make Connections and Have Fun!

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , ,

By Kathleen Pearson

So you made it through law school finals and headed home for the holidays.  Congratulations!  The only problem now is that your CSO (and everyone else for that matter) keeps telling you that you need to “network.”  Whether you have a job lined up or not, that word keeps buzzing around like an annoying gnat.  Don’t they know you are wiped out and the mere thought of having to do something else is going to send you right over to the edge?? 

“Networking” has become one of those insidious corporate buzz words that seems to be the panacea of all problems anyone might ever face. Because it has an official name, it seems unattainable by anyone that is not a perfect conversationalist or social butterfly. The word itself now seems filled with an undercurrent of wanting to get something from the other person – i.e. a job.  That’s a lot of pressure for both you and the other person!

Relax.  The holidays should not be filled with even more pressure and tasks.  It should be about having fun, reconnecting with old friends and family, and making new connections with interesting people.  Instead of focusing on networking, focus on connecting.

Just in case you have forgotten, here is a quick reminder of how to connect with others and have fun over the holidays:

  1. Go to a holiday party with friends and family. 
  2. Talk about your experiences in law school with friends and family
  3. Ask your friends and family what they have been up to
  4. Meet new people at the party and ask them about their interests
  5. Tell the new people about yourself and your interests
  6. Promise to keep in touch with the people you just talked to!
Add some music, food and perhaps a little egg nog, and you are well on your way to having fun and making connections with new people.  By recharging your batteries at home and talking about all those new experiences you just had in law school, you will come back to school refreshed and ready for a new semester. 

 

Currently rated 5.0 by 2 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

After Successive Legal Victories, Occupy Nashville Holds On Tight

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,

By James Bowden

The Occupy Wall Street movement looks like it is waning, or at least hibernating for the winter. In New York, Zuccoti Park has been cleared out. The Occupy LA, Occupy Philadelphia, and Occupy Oakland encampments are gone. But if the movement is in retreat, no one told the Occupy Nashville folks camping out on Legislative Plaza, right outside my office doors. Winter is settling in, and over the last week we’ve had torrential rains and freezing temperatures, but they are still out there every morning when I get to work. Occupy Nashville is holding tight to their spot on Legislative Plaza after several interesting legal twists and turns. Their tenacity may make them a unique outfit within their movement.

Tents sprang up at the foot of the Tennessee State Capital early in October. Later that month, reports of all sorts of not-entirely-legal-or-appropriate behavior led Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam to impose a curfew on Legislative Plaza from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The curfew was announced the afternoon of October 27th. The Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) arrested protesters early in the morning of October 28th for violating the curfew.

I think it is an understatement to say that it didn’t go so well for the Governor and the THP. A Magistrate Judge first refused to hear the charges against the protesters on the grounds that the protesters were not given sufficient notice of the curfew, and released them for lack of probable cause. The THP tried to arrest protesters again at about midnight on October 28th; this time, Metro Night Court Judge Tom Nelson issued an epic benchslap – unable to identify any legal authority for the curfew, he again found no probable cause for their arrest and ordered all arrested protesters released. Release on a finding of no probable cause at arraignment is a very, very rare occurrence. Two in a row? Probably a record. To add insult to injury, the THP was called out for a less-than-covert attempt at infiltrating the encampment. Soon after the arrests, U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger issued an injunction against enforcement of the curfew. A decision isn’t expected until February at the earliest, but I expect it to be well read and well reported when it arrives.

So, the Occupy Nashville protesters are still there. I went down and walked around Legislative Plaza after work for a few minutes last night. It is a surprisingly well organized little encampment, with a mess tent, a first aid tent, a front office, and even a “social media” tent. The protesters are perfectly friendly, and happy to talk to anyone who will listen. I hope they stay warm and safe, have happy holidays, and are ready for their hearing next year.

Currently rated 5.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The [Surprise] Driver of U.S. Legal Policy

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , , ,

By James Bowden

The United States’ political system is controlled by two major political parties, one generally politically liberal and one generally politically conservative. That is the way we think of the political policy-making process: the left and the right fight for enactment of their policies and, ever so rarely, compromise. Query: what if the actual conflict implicit in the U.S. political and policy-making process wasn’t the conflict between right or left, or rural versus urban, or racial, or any of the main dichotomies that we use to try to make sense of policy making. Here’s the surprise: the main conflict is really generational. Presented in customary bullet-point format for your perusal:

  • The Wealth Gap. Forget the 1% versus the 99%. Even the fact that the top 1% of wage earners own more of the nation’s financial wealth than the bottom 50%, or that in 2007 the top 1% of all income earners in the U.S. made 23.5% of all income, more than the entire bottom 50%. The starkest statistic is the difference between the change in wealth of the old and the new generations over the past several decades. Since 1984, older people have seen a 42% increase in their net wealth while their younger counterparts have experienced a 68% decrease. I sure hope they aren’t planning to take it all with them. 
  • Debt and Taxes. For the past decade, tax increases have been the most-hated villain in Washington. Really, it goes back further than that. Since 1986, maximum marginal tax rates have been historically low, particularly compared to what the Greatest Generation paid. Over the same period, the U.S. debt has increased seven fold. The average baby boomer was between 22 and 40 in 1986; their prime income earning years have overlapped with an uninterrupted period of historically low taxation, over which period public debt exploded. Now the baby boomers are cashing out – the first of the baby boomers became eligible for Medicare and Social Security in 2011. They are retiring, and won’t be paying in anymore. Guess who picks up the tab by default? 
  • The Fiscal Battle. We saw a battle over raising the debt ceiling this summer, and are facing sequestration if the “supercommittee” that resulted from the compromise fails to agree on cuts to federal spending in excess of $1 trillion. What is on the chopping block? The big losers are defense (which is a large employer of younger workers), education (which is supposed to provide the younger generation with opportunities), and spending on programs designed to reduce unemployment (which, as discussed below, effects the younger generation inordinately). What are the sacred cows? The spending items that are bringing the committee to loggerheads are entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare (which benefit the older generation effectively exclusively) and the possibility of raising taxes (which, as discussed above, has the effect of benefiting the older generation). 
  • The Cost of Success. The saying goes that there are two kinds of good debt – debt the incurrence of which produces a positive net change in wealth. One is a mortgage and the other is student debt. The saying is getting pretty difficult to stand behind these days. Grad PLUS loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and guaranteed by the most credit-worthy institution in the world – the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They carry an interest rate of 8.5%. The interest rate on the last car I bought was 7.1%. That means that in 2007 a non-dischargeable, absolutely guaranteed debt carried an interest rate 140 basis points higher that a dischargeable loan secured by a depreciating asset which was likely underwater the moment it rolled off the car lot. Since then, it has gotten worse – most interest rates have dipped over the past few years, but student loan rates are fixed. A person’s cost of capital for a fancy new car is lower than for an education, and the average indebtedness of a law school grad is $100,000, which buys a pretty fancy car. Or two. Or three. That is insanity. 
  • The Tyranny of High Expectations. Just like every generation [allegedly] works to pass a better world on to their children, each generation is expected to make good use of the benefits they receive from the generation that went before them. I never thought I would do this, but I am going to paraphrase Cracked.com: members of the young generation were told they needed to go to school and work hard so they didn’t have to flip burgers. Now that the younger generation has gone to school and worked hard, the economy is feeble, the impact of unemployment inordinately falls on them (young adults age 20-24 have an unemployment rate of 14% compared to 9% for the population overall and 7% for people over 55), and they are being criticized as entitled for … you guessed it: not wanting to flip burgers.
Why does the conflict of generations matter? Think of the impact on public policy, including tax policy, entitlements policy, public finance, education and fiscal policy, just to name a few, if the debate is cast in the contrast of decisions’ impacts on different generations. The next decades are going to see important legal developments involving the enforcement of promises made to the public through entitlement programs, the protection of wealth, and innovations in mechanisms for the passive investment in wealth-generating assets. If attorneys can advise their clients and legislators from a perspective of the benefits and detriments to them and their constituents based on the disparate impacts on generations, long-term results are likely going to be better for clients and everyone in general. If not, someone is definitely getting hosed.

Currently rated 3.8 by 12 people

  • Currently 3.75/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for the Teachable Moment

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,

By  James Bowden

Pop Quiz: does a hotel blatantly oppress an individual or a group’s right to freedom of speech by canceling a contract with an anti-Islamic organization seeking to hold a conference on the basis that it may cause interruptions to the hotel’s business? 

a)       No.

b)       Yes

c)       Both A and B

d)       Wait, what? 

If you went to law school and you answered B or C, you should probably seek a refund of your tuition money. Fact: private persons cannot violate the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of speech. The restriction only applies to state actors. But thank you for playing.

Currently rated 2.8 by 4 people

  • Currently 2.75/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

A Note From London - Please File in the "Jeez, I Hope Not" Department

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , ,
By James Bowden

Working long hours sometimes is less than ideal – you can get to the point where all you feel like you do is work and sleep. Working long hours, though, is sort of a part of the shared experience of the law. At my firm we have all sorts of amenities on site that make working long hours easier, from an exercise room with showers to team dinners when things heat up to a service that can run errands for attorneys when we don’t have time to take care of things ourselves. But I do really like to sleep in my own bed.

Per this ABA journal article, some of the firms in the magic circle in London are so over the whole “attorneys going home to sleep” trend and accordingly are now offering accommodations – in the form of those funny little cubbyhole beds made famous by hotels in Tokyo, Japan. I have to say I am not a fan, and hope that this trend stays on the other side of the Atlantic. And, if such a thing does become common practice, I hope they find a way to make the sleeping pods look a little bit less like ovens.

Currently rated 3.0 by 5 people

  • Currently 3/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Does Rupert Murdock's News Corporation have a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Problem?

Posted by wlansden | Filed under
By James Bowden

Much noise is being made in the media over News Corporation’s British subsidiary The News of the World’s alleged hacking into the voice mail of a kidnapped English teen, and even the possibility of similar hacking into 9/11 victims’ voicemail. I’m curious why so little attention is being paid to the possibility that one of the worlds largest and most powerful corporations might be charged with multiple felonies by the U.S. Department of Justice. I’m pretty sure that News Corporation has taken note of the issue.

A little bit of background on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – in the late 1970s, the public got wind of U.S. corporations paying bribes to foreign officials. Lots of them. So, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq., was passed in 1977 to prohibit similar corporate bad behavior abroad in the future. The statute includes two major provisions: (i) adherence to accounting standards and required disclosure on filings with the S.E.C. designed to make under-the-table payments difficult to get away with, and (ii) a blanket prohibition on bribing foreign officials.

So the analysis: The News of the World, a News Corporation Subsidiary (editors note: if you had any doubt as to how huge News Corporation is, check out the length and breadth of its subsidiary list), allegedly paid multiple illegal bribes through its employees to officers in Scotland Yard in order to receive the benefit of non-public confidential information. Suffering Succotash! Sounds like an issue!

The experts seem to be indicating that a suit would be an uphill struggle, if not completely futile. The FCPA is rarely applied to actions taken in G20 countries (read: countries the D.O.J. considers competent to enforce the rule of law itself), and paying cops for information isn’t exactly an action that has previously been prosecuted under the FCPA. I think the most interesting argument is for due process (i.e., that there is no point in prosecuting acts done in Britain by British Citizens in concert with British officials in American courts), but making this an explicit limitation to the FCPA would eviscerate the statute – all a malfeasant company would need to do to avoid prosecution would be to make sure the bribe was paid by a local. The commentary does also note that the D.O.J. has recently been less gun shy about prosecuting companies under the FCPA.

Even if prosecution under the FCPA is unlikely, News Corporation is certainly lawyering up, and there is speculation that they will make a voluntary self disclosure to the S.E.C. and the D.O.J. And while I am not an expert on the FCPA, I know that while many companies survive, the consequences of a felony conviction for a U.S. company are potentially devastating. I also know what the term “willful blindness” means (ahem, James Murdock at 10:41 A.M.), and that it is no defense.

Currently rated 4.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 4/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

"I've seen some humdingers, but never any ordinance like this"

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,
By James Bowden

That’s Mark Hays, General Counsel for the Arkansas Municipal League, reacting to an ordinance passed by the City Council of Gould, Arkansas setting forth with the (supposed) force of law that “No new organizations shall be allowed to exist in the City of Gould without approval from a majority of the City Council” as reported in this New York Times article. This passage of this ordinance is a sort of First Amendment Violation Hat Trick for the Gould City Town Counsel, having recently passed an ordinance requiring that the Gould Citizens Advisory Counsel, a political group based in Gould that seeks to influence how the town is governed, cease to exist, and another prohibiting the mayor from meeting with “any organization in any location inside or outside Gould city limits.” Holy Schnikes.

To be fair, Ms. Sonya Farley, a Gould city councilwoman, has admitted that the ordinance was “worded wrong” and was passed “to treat everybody fairly.” So I’m guessing the offending ordinance will be reworded to somehow do right by the whole “Congress [extended to all state actors, including city councils, by the 14th Amendment] shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” language of the First Amendment. I expect that the Gould City Council’s attorneys will be scratching their head on the work around long into the wee hours of every night, until the end of time.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Generational Grievances - an Out-House (?) Response to In-House Counsel

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , , ,

By James Bowden

Fellow blogger and occupant of the lawyerly Nirvana that is in-house counselhood Mark Herrmann recently wrote a blog post carried by Above The Law noting, in essence: (i) young attorneys don’t have great attention to detail and fail to sweat the small stuff, and (ii) more experienced attorneys obsess over details and are bothered by younger attorneys’ failure to do so, because they have all been driven insane. It is probably a fair criticism, though one that I think begs a response, in bullet-points (because I’ve been told that in-house people love bullet points):

  • The granular attention to detail that makes attorneys so valuable to companies and obnoxious to their non-lawyer friends is a learned behavior, gained from extensive training. It is not a behavior that people are born with (like washing one’s hands with five different bars of soap every time we pass a sink) even if the manifested result is similar. Risk aversion is likely the trait attorneys are born with, and attention to detail is a professional coping mechanism. In short, we’re learning.
  • There is a big difference, at least from my perspective, between initial drafting and the editorial process. I am notorious for typos in documents I draft – I think it is because I know what it is supposed to say, and am a little bit blind to minor errors in my own work. Which is why my poor assistant has to review everything for me. On the other hand, I am very good at picking up typos and inconsistencies in other people’s work. This may explain in part why one of my earlier posts misspelled “hearsay” in the title. Also, per a colleague of mine, I have the spelling skills of a baby walrus.
  • An engineer once told me that his rule for producing work was, “fast, good, and cheap: pick any two.” In law firm life, young attorneys are asked to provide things good and fast; cheap is simply a function of how much time you have to work. So, while law firms rightly obsess themselves with producing flawless work product (with the possible exception of initial complaints in class-action securities cases), sometimes the timeframe required results in work product that is “as fast as possible, and as good as it can be in the time provided.” Which is good, because it gives the other side things to comment on.
  • The Young Lawyers Blog has no comment as to the sanity or lack there of demonstrated by more experienced attorneys, except to say that if insanity is a characteristic of the attorneys we work under, insanity must be a part of what we aspire to.
  • I’ve noticed that attorneys tend to eat a large amount of sushi, which leads me to believe that the observed behavior noted by Mr. Herrmann may in fact be the result of mercury poisoning. 
Once I saw a sticker (maybe a t-shirt) that said “insanity is hereditary; you get it from your children.” Based on Mr. Herrmann’s post, in the practice of law insanity is a sign of life’s lessons learned.

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and the Economics of Litigation

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , , ,
By James Bowden

After the American Civil War and the passage of the Civil War Amendments (i.e. the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments), instances of discrimination and denials of individual civil rights continued to be institutional practices in the former Confederacy. Victims of these abuses faced a difficult problem: they didn’t generally have access to the assistance of an attorney for assistance. Why not? Attorneys couldn’t afford to take the cases and still feed themselves; the plaintiffs were more often than not penniless and the only legal remedy available was injunctive relief, which meant less than a hill of beans of an economic recovery following even egregious violations of civil rights.

The fix Congress came up with was to pass a statute that changed the economic playing field as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The specific statute, now codified at 42 U.S.C. §1983, allowed plaintiffs to pursue equitable remedies (specifically monetary damages), and the corresponding 42 U.S.C. §1988 allowed for collection of reasonable attorneys’ fees. All of a sudden, taking civil rights plaintiff work made good economic sense.

The case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al., 564 U.S. ___ (2011), decided June 20th, centers around a similar tweak to the economics of litigation included in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - class action suits as allowed by Rule 23. Class action suits are ideally suited for situations where a person or entity with a disproportionate amount of power (or wealth) injures a large number of generally less powerful (or less wealthy) people and entities, even just a little bit. Instead of requiring each individual to file separately and seek to join a single case, or even litigate an entire claim separately, the class action suit allows a representative or representatives of the class to prosecute the case. The class representatives (and their attorneys, who are most often on a contingency fee arrangement) are rewarded with a percentage of the total settlement and the remainder is doled out to the other class members. While each individual injury probably doesn’t produce an economically viable claim to litigate, aggregating the claims into a single suit allows even minor injustices to yield sufficient enough claims to support the often significant cost of litigation.

The plaintiffs in the Dukes case are three female former employees of Wal-Mart purporting to represent as many as 1.5 million other women who are current and former employees of Wal-Mart, alleging that Wal-Mart has discriminated against them on the basis of their sex. The numbers are staggering, and not just the number of potential plaintiffs: women represent a full 70% of the hourly wage earners employed by Wal-Mart, but only 33% of management, and statistics show female employees as being paid less than men in every region, with the salary gap widening over the course of employment even for men and women hired to perform the same job at the same time. Wal-Mart has an anti-discrimination policy but gives relatively broad latitude to local managers as far as promotion and raises. The plaintiffs claim that the statistical evidence produced indicates that the system of delegated discretion runs afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans, among other things, employment discrimination based on sex.

Interestingly, the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas and the dissent written by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Justices Stevens, Sotomayor, and Kagan draw heavily from the life work of Vanderbilt’s own Professor Richard Nagareda, and come to different conclusions. The core holding of the majority opinion reverses the opinion of the District Court, upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirement that their grievance share commonality as required by Rule 23(a) essentially because their expert witness could not confirm whether 0.5% or 95 percent of the employment decisions at Wal-Mart were the product of stereotyped thinking – and essentially holds that even though some or many of the individual decisions resulting in the disparities noted may be the product of discrimination, some may not, so the commonality of the class is insufficient for certification under Rule 23. The dissent, which is styled as a concurrence but refuses to join the essential holding, briefly points out that the majority opinion substantially limits the “disparate impact” approach to Title VII claims. It really is an opinion worth reading.

The impact of the Dukes on the economics of class action litigation is difficult to discern. In a sense, it is a narrow decision – the majority seems mostly unwilling to allow such a large, nation-wide class to be certified while allowing that Title VII would support such a class-action claim, if the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) were more concretely apparent. Cases where the commonality of the class is objectively apparent – shareholder suits with all of their strange economic incentives come to mind – will carry on, business as usual. But the impact on this particular type of case – in which no explicit policy of discrimination can be pointed to, but the statistical evidence of discrimination is substantial – may be catastrophic. Putative plaintiffs are bringing such cases more and more frequently, using sociologic studies and regression analysis in an attempt to link institutionalized but unofficial discrimination to its observable effects. The majority opinion requires that the analysis of a putative class of litigants include speculation by the court as to how each individual’s claim may have been affected by different influences – what the concurrence (dissent) calls a “dissimilarities” inquiry. The holding is a powerful tool for any defendant to use to parse apart the scope of a class of plaintiffs, and reduce the economic advantage that Rule 23 provides in suits alleging discrimination.

Currently rated 3.0 by 2 people

  • Currently 3/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5