CMLawLibraryBlog

Trial Advocacy Class in the Law Library

Jessica Mathewson-Library Media Technical Asst.-jessica.mathewson@law.csuohio.edu | July 12, 2007 - 13:27

Trial Ad classes will be held in the Law Library, Monday, July 16th-Friday, July 20th and Monday, July 23rd-Thursday, July 26th. The classes will be taking place on the Base Level and part of the Atruim Level (including A066) from 4pm to 9pm each evening. There will be some study rooms available on the Atrium and 2nd Levels. Please stop by the Public Services desk for quiet areas to study. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Copyright Options for Scholars in the Digital World

Jan Novak, Associate Director jan.novak@law.csuohio.edu | July 12, 2007 - 11:50

The Internet provides scholars virtually endless opportunities to disseminate their intellectual product to varied audiences: blogs, institutional repositories, faculty or class web pages serve as distribution outlets in addition to traditionally published journals or treatises. Scholars need to be mindful of ways to preserve their rights in their works in order to fully exploit the options available to them. Shyam Sunder and Ann Okerson recently posted “Sign on the Dotted Line or Negotiate: A Copyright Primer for Scholars” (http://ssrn.com/abstract=991946 ), offering tips and model forms for preserving author’s rights when negotiating publishing contracts. The Scholar’s Copyright Project at Science Commons provides alternative license agreements at its Creative Commons Licenses page. Peter B. Hirtle published a comparative study of author’s counters to the publisher’s contract language in Author Addenda: An Examination of Five Alternatives , Dlib November 2006 (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/hirtle/11hirtle.html)

Parental Responsibility Ordinance Held Unconstitutional

Sue Altmeyer, Electronic Services Librarian, sue.altmeyer@law.csuohio.edu | July 02, 2007 - 08:37

The Garfield Heights Municipal Court struck down a Maple Heights ordinance holding parents accountable for their children's crimes. City of Maple Heights v. Ephraim (June 29, 2007), Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case No. CRB 0700016. The ordinance was held in conflict with Ohio Revised Code section 2901.21 and Maple Height ordinance 606.07. These laws specify that in order to establish criminal culpability, there must be either (1) a voluntary act or (2) an omission to perform an act or duty. The parental responsibility ordinance, Maple Heights Ord. No. 648. 20, merely requires that the offender be a parent, guardian or responsible for the child's safety, and that the child committed an enumerated violation. The Maple Heights parental responsibility ordinance lacks the "actus reus" required by Ohio law and Maple Heights city ordinances.

The ordinance is also unconstitutionally vague because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Not every Maple Heights parent whose child was charged with a crime was cited. Additionally, the law unconstitutionally places the burden of proof on the parent, which violates due process. The ordinance requires the parent to prove, as a defense, that they adequately supervised the child.

The decision is available at the Garfield Height Municipal Court docket. Do a case number search, and type in "0700016". Page 3 of the opinion cites several law review articles discussing the legality of parental responsibility ordinances.

Employment Discrimination Against Smokers?

Sue Altmeyer, Electronic Services Librarian, sue.altmeyer@law.csuohio.edu | July 02, 2007 - 07:19

The Cleveland Clinic recently announced that it will no longer hire smokers, effective September 1, 2007. Vanac, Mary Clinic Will Not Hire Any Smokers The Plain Dealer, June 28, 2007. The Clinic joins Medical Mutual of Ohio and Scotts Miracle Grow, two Ohio companies that refuse to hire smokers. Scotts Miracle Grow takes it one step further by testing employees for nicotine, and terminating the employees who test positive.

A Scotts Miracle Grow employee in Boston sued when he was terminated for off-duty smoking. While some states have laws prohibiting the firing of an employee for off-duty smoking, Massachusetts does not. Pfeiffer, Sacha, Off-the-Job Smoker Sues Over Firing The Boston Globe, Nov. 30, 2006. These "lifestyle discrimination" laws typically prohibit termination of an employee for their lawful behavior outside of work. These state statutes are listed and discussed in the Employment Coordinator , KF 3315.E46, paragraph 24.1-.34, also available via Westlaw. A chart showing state anti-discrimination laws for smokers is available on the web, from an unverified commercial source: see Smoking Laws by State by hr.blr.com.

Like Massachusetts, Ohio does not have a "life style discrimination" law which would prohibit companies from terminating tobacco users. The Massachusetts case is based upon an invasion of privacy claim. In Ohio, an invasion of privacy claim would be difficult to prove in the employee smoking context. The employee would have to show a wrongful intrusion into his private activities in such a manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities. See
The Sound of Ideas: Smoke Free Applicants, WCPN Radio, July 2, 2007, comments by Professor Ken Kowalski of the Cleveland Marshall College of Law.

CMLawLibraryBlog

Trial Advocacy Class in the Law Library

Copyright Options for Scholars in the Digital World

Parental Responsibility Ordinance Held Unconstitutional

Employment Discrimination Against Smokers?

Menu

calendar

search

Syndicate: subscribe via RSS Reader

Subscribe Via Email

recently...

Categories

Links