It is not always about the commission or result of a crime; sometimes the actions taken to cover the crime up can lead to further disastrous outcomes. After ground shaking revelations over the past year about the famed film producer Harvey Weinstein and his multiple sexual harassment scandals, followed by allegations about many other prominent figures in the Hollywood scene, it is past due that state legislatures consider outlawing non-disclosure agreements (“interchangeably, NDA”) related to these crimes. While the rich and powerful have long cowered behind the shield (or sword) of draconian non-disclosure agreements that limit the ability of a victim or witness to seek redress, the walls may be tumbling down around high status perpetrators of sexual misconduct in the #MeToo Era.
This Note proposes that NDAs involving allegations of sexual assault and harassment, should be outlawed outright in order to stifle barriers that protect wealthy abusers and punish victims. In the alternative, legislatures and courts should impose negative presumptions against the enforceability of such agreements under all circumstances, in order to remove leverages that powerful institutions possess over victims and witnesses of sexual assault and harassment.
The profession of esports is relatively new and with that newness comes a host of issues. The one which this paper will focus on is the vulnerability of esports players to the chance of players being taken advantage of by their teams. During my research I did not come across any other writing about imposing a fiduciary duty between esports team and their players, so this paper is taking the first attempt at imposing a fiduciary duty to esports teams and their players. Due to the lack of previous research much of this paper is based off my own theories. This paper will explain how the designation of a fiduciary relationship between the esports teams and their players is a logical way to stop the bulk of teams taking unfair advantage of their players. Fiduciary duties are generally invoked to protect people who lack the knowledge or power to protect him or herself. These duties are not only invoked based upon relationships, such as between attorneys and clients or doctors and patients, but also on an ad hoc basis. The relationship between esports teams and players is one which passes the test as being an ad hoc fiduciary relationship. Even if the argument is raised that a fiduciary relationship does not fit the esports team and player relationship there are other ways in which fiduciary duties can still be imposed on esports teams.
In Part II I will briefly explain what esports are and how large of a market esports has made in the past decade. Further, Part II will explain who esports players are and the details of their relationship with esports teams which make a fiduciary relationship necessary between esports players and their teams. Part III will focus on two arguments; the first argument is that under the Burdett v. Miller standard of the formation of an ad hoc fiduciary relationship esports teams and players have a fiduciary relationship, the second argument is that under the economic realities test esports players are employees and would deserve some fiduciary duties under Matthew Bodies’ theories in his paper Employment as a Fiduciary Relationship. Finally, in Part IV I will briefly reiterate why esports teams owe their players a fiduciary relationship and why that is a beneficial classification.
On October 3rd, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case Gill v. Whitford. This case arose from an appeal from a District Court ruling which found that the Republican controlled Wisconsin legislature’s congressional redistricting plan was drafted and enacted with the intent of systematically disadvantaging the voting strength of Democrats statewide and was thus an unconstitutional gerrymander.
In recent decades the United States has seen a rise in jurisprudence surrounding the gay community but it was not until the last five to ten years that there has been an exponential increase in cases surrounding transgender rights. The issue of transgender “bathroom rights” rose to the forefront of the media in March 2016 when the North Carolina General Assembly passed the “Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act” better known as “House Bill 2” or “HB2.”
This Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Apple will face off with the FBI in a court hearing over the locked iPhone seized after the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Privacy concerns took center stage in February when Apple challenged a court order compelling Apple to unlock the phone by creating software to bypass a security feature of the iOS 8 operating system. Apple’s CEO released a public letter harping on the importance of privacy and security and Apple sent their top attorney into a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss the danger of creating a backdoor into iPhones.
Justice Scalia once opined, “there is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” Society allows some criminal activity to occur because, in some instances, we value privacy more than we value safety or crime control. Until recently, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“UAVs”) used to be a technology of tomorrow—a concept that once seemed completely farfetched, improbable, and even a bit eerie.
“What a man does not know and cannot find out is chance as to him, and is recognized as chance by the law.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370, 373 (1924).
As a Student-Intern in the Rutgers Domestic Violence Clinic, I have had the opportunity and pleasure of learning about the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Act (the “Act”), the ways in which the Act is applied by the New Jersey Courts, and the consequences the Act has on litigants.
Sometimes a small decision demonstrates a large principle. That happened in late August when the Appellate Division released their unpublished decision of C.H.