Jones Day

About: Jones Day is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Arbitration. The organization has 118 authors who have published 112 publications receiving 882 citations.

Benefit plan limitations after the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Abstract: Virtually all company welfare benefit plans contain one or more disability-specific benefit limitations. The Americans with Disabilities Act casts doubt on the lawfulness of these limitations. The legislative history of the ADA is confusing, and the EEOC's failure to offer meaningful guidance on this issue further clouds the situation. Based on the Supreme Court's prior interpretation of language similar to that used in the ADA, we believe all disability-specific limitations adopted prior to the ADA are entitled to a "safe harbor"; disability-specific limitations adopted after Congress passed the ADA are still lawful unless the limitations are intentionally used to discriminate in a nonbenefit aspect of employment.

Charge de la preuve et théorie du contrôle en droit communautaire de la concurrence: pour un changement de perspective (Burden of Proof and Intensity of Review in EU Competition Law: For a Change of Perspective)

Abstract: French Abstract: Le point de depart de cet article est le constat, dresse par de nombreux auteurs, d’une certaine confusion dans la jurisprudence communautaire recente en droit de la concurrence a propos de l’allocation de la charge de la preuve et de ce que certains auteurs appellent le « standard de preuve ». L’article s’efforce d’apporter une clarification conceptuelle de ces questions. Il se compose de trois parties. La premiere partie est theorique. Elle montre que les questions de preuve et de controle du juge sont conceptualisees differemment dans les traditions juridiques des Etats membres et fait le point sur les notions de charge de preuve, de « standard de preuve » et de « standard de controle ». Comme souvent, la jurisprudence communautaire se presente comme un creuset de differentes traditions juridiques, si bien que les concepts de common law et les concepts de droit civil apparaissent les uns et les autres utiles pour eclairer cette jurisprudence. La seconde partie est plus descriptive : elle fait le point sur le droit positif a travers la jurisprudence recente et illustre par des exemples precis l’interet des differentes notions qui ont ete definies dans la premiere partie. Cette partie debouche sur le constat selon lequel les notions de « standard de preuve » et de « standard de controle », empruntees a la common law, sont insuffisantes pour comprendre l’intensite du controle qu’exerce le juge communautaire. La troisieme partie propose une autre vision de ce controle, construite a partir de notions differentes, principalement la notion de « scenario » (qui designe un « recit economique » elaboree par la Commission pour soutenir qu’un comportement ou une operation sont anticoncurrentiels) et la notion de «normalite economique» telle que percue par le juge. English Abstract: Many authors have pointed to a lack of clarity in the existing case law of EC courts in the field of competition law regarding the allocation of the burden of proof, as well as the determination of the standard of proof. This article attempts to clarify the concepts underlying these questions, bearing in mind that the Court reasons in more than one language. It consists in three sections. The first section reviews how questions regarding the allocation of the burden of proof and judicial control are conceptualised differently in different legal traditions. It also attempts to clarify the notions of burden of proof, standard of proof and standard of control. With regard to these notions, as is often the case, EC case law appears to be a melting pot of different legal traditions. It is thus shown that notions originating both in the common law and in the civil law tradition are useful to understand EC case law in relation to the issues of proof and control. The second section describes the current state of the law and illustrates with examples from court cases the usefulness of the various notions defined in the first section. It leads to the conclusion that the common law notions of "standard of proof" and "standard of control" are not sufficient to understand the intensity of control applied by Community courts over Commission’s decisions. The third section proposes another description of judicial control, based on the notions of “scenario” (depicting the economic storyline adduced by the Commission to account for anticompetitive effect) and “economic normality”, as perceived by courts.

Will jurors correct for evidence interdependence in their verdicts? It depends.

Abstract: Throughout an investigation, pieces of evidence are likely to contaminate one another, yet at trial jurors are expected to treat pieces of evidence as if they are independent. Are jurors able to understand potential evidence contamination? The present study showed mock jurors a videotaped trial simulation. Participants were randomly assigned to hear testimony regarding one piece of evidence, two pieces of independent evidence, or two pieces of interdependent evidence. The study tested the hypothesis that jurors who hear evidence that is interdependent will be just as likely to find the defendant guilty as jurors who hear about two pieces of independent evidence. When an eyewitness's identification was the uncontaminated piece of evidence, our hypothesis was supported. However, when the confession was the uncontaminated piece of evidence, jurors seemed to understand that one piece of evidence had been influenced by another and adjusted their beliefs about the defendant's guilt accordingly. This study supports the conclusion that jurors can sometimes identify and correct for evidence contamination in their perceptions of a defendant's guilt. Implications for reform support are discussed.

The Australian Senate passes a bill that introduces new criminal and civil offenses on cartel conduct

Abstract: Following the international trend towards criminalizing cartel offenses, the Australian Senate passed a bill on June 16 that amends the key antitrust law in Australia, the Trade Practices Act…

One Student, One Vote? Equal Protection & Campus Elections

Abstract: This Note considers the application of the constitutional law principle of "one person, one vote" to campus elections at public universities. It begins by discussing the history, scope, and current application of the "one person, one vote" principle. Then, it considers whether elected student governments at public universities might be sufficiently governmental to trigger "one person, one vote." Assuming they are, the Note uses the elected student governments at the University of Georgia and the University of Michigan as representative examples of how current methods of student government apportionment violate "one person, one vote." Finally, notwithstanding constitutional concerns, the Note argues that student governments should comply with "one person, one vote" as a matter of good policy.