Feed on

We are nearly done with our third “unit” in employment law, and our first graded assignment is coming up in about a week, so it’s time for me to update and post my employment law podcast summaries. So far, I’ve updated:

the introductory podcast

and the employment contracts podcast

You should be able to listen by clicking on the play button, or right click (command click for mac users) the link to download or save the audio to listen through some other way.

I’ll try to update the job security through torts podcast early this week and post it.

And don’t forget — if you like reading more than listening, the written scripts are available in TWEN under the course materials link.

I think that streaming some of these podcasts can be tricky, and downloading may work better. So let me provide links that allow you to download. Right click (or command click for macs) and “save link as”:

Introductory podcast


Jurisdiction stripping

Article I courts

Supreme Court review


Federal common law

suing government actors



I don’t mean to leave employment discrimination out of the podcast fun. I’ve created summaries for the big frameworks or theories of discrimination: disparate treatment, disparate impact, retaliation, and harassment. They are posted in a folder under the “helpful extras” link on TWEN. I also have a podcast on the ADA there because it is different enough that separating it out makes sense. The scripts and recordings are a couple of years old, but the content is still true, so there really didn’t need to be any updating.

Disparate Treatment (right click these links to download)

Disparate Impact




After updating and re-recording some of these, all of the podcasts are ready to be posted. The scripts for these are on TWEN in a folder under the “slides and helpful extras” link.

Article I courts

Federal common law, the power of federal courts to make law, or the law to be applied

Supreme Court review


Suing state and local government actors


Catching up

Why does it seem like I’m always behind? I’m slowly catching up on podcasts now that the semester is over. Here is an updated jurisdiction stripping one.

Hey all. I’ve started to update podcasts for this class, and I have two ready to post. The scripts are on TWEN under the slides and helpful extras link in their own folder. And here is the audio:

Introductory podcast


Here is abstention:

And the downloadable version is here.

And here is the podcast on section 1983:

downloadable here.

Quite a few of the cases or problems in my criminal law class involve rape or sexual assault. The casebook I use has a different approach to teaching criminal law that doesn’t separate out these kinds of crimes from other kinds of crimes. There are disadvantages to this, largely because the law surrounding sexual violence has been the subject of sweeping reform that is connected to issues of race and sex equality in complicated ways. And society’s beliefs about what constitutes blameworthy sexual conduct are both in flux and not always connected with what the law says is blameworthy. Not treating sexual violence separately means that we often don’t have time to discuss the reforms and the continuing difficulty we have in defining crimes in this area. There are advantages, though, too. The cases and problems we have are accurate reflections of what the law right now is, and not separating sexual violence out as something different from other kinds of crimes can help us take it more seriously and to develop attitudes that treat victims and defendants the same way we would treat them for other kinds of crimes. This helps to get outside the “bad, old” ways of thinking to more effectively avoid engaging in the same harms that the reforms were targeted to solve.

In connection with that, I read an article today that was so thoughtful about some of the problems that we have in figuring out what sexual conduct ought to be criminal and why that I had to share it. Sarah Hepola in “The Alcohol Blackout,” published October 29 in Texas Monthly explores the role of excessive alcohol in helping to create the situations in which injuries because of sexual conduct occur. There are places that I might make different normative judgments than she does, but her treatment of room for disagreement in particular is especially important. I encourage you to read it.

Here it is. One giant podcast on general defenses:

and here is the downloadable version.

The sound isn’t fantastic. I tried to make it sound less like I was recording this in some sort of cave, but I’m not sure I was successful.

The Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion yesterday in an excessive force case, Mullenix v. Luna, essentially holding that unless “existing precedent placed the conclusion that [the officer] acted unreasonably in these circumstances ‘beyond debate,'” the officer would be immune from a suit for damages. The debate between the concurrence and single dissent is interesting, especially since Justice Sotomayor is the dissenter. As a former prosecutor, she tends to be pretty sympathetic to security issues.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »