Over the past several months, there have been major advancements in Colombia’s peace process. But more work lies ahead if Colombia wants to achieve lasting peace and reconciliation–each actor in the conflict must be held accountable. In an attempt to ensure a comprehensive peace process, Colombia’s transitional justice system charged a group of multinational corporations (MNCs) with crimes against humanity. The move to charge corporate entities with crimes against humanity is rare and could set a precedent for corporate accountability moving forward.

Colombia’s Peace Process

Late last year, the Colombian government reached a peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and has since begun talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN). Negotiations between the government and these two marxist insurgencies have dominated coverage of the country’s peace process. However, it is a mistake to treat the conflict as something exclusive to the government and these leftist insurgencies. The war in Colombia is complex. In order to achieve lasting peace, the process cannot ignore the plethora of groups and interests that have stoked the conflict over its many years. On February 2, the Colombian transitional justice system took a major step in ensuring a comprehensive peace and reconciliation process by charging a group of MNCs with crimes against humanity.

While FARC and the ELN often draw the attention of onlookers, a 2013 government report claimed right-wing paramilitary groups aligned with the Colombian government and/or corporations perpetrated most of the conflict’s targeted killings and a majority of its massacres. The collection of MNCs, which includes Dole, Del Monte, and Chiquita were accused of knowingly funding right-wing paramilitary groups in order to protect their interests. The fruit-producing MNCs are believed to have supported the infamously violent United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) which controlled swaths of Uraba and northern Colombia–the country’s main banana producing region.

Corporate Crimes?

Of course, corporations are regularly accused of violating human rights. There are no shortages of stories (many backed by conclusive evidence) in which corporations ruthlessly pursued their interests with a callous disregard for human life. Rich in natural resources, Latin America is home to some of the most harrowing examples of corporate incited conflicts. Notwithstanding the multitudes of corporate interests in the region, fruit companies have a particularly sordid history in Latin America. In the 1950’s, the United Fruit Company worked with the CIA to overthrow an overwhelmingly popular leftist government in Guatemala and install a far-right authoritarian government that was sympathetic to corporate business interests. This authoritarian coup led to a 36-year war and the genocide of an estimated 200,000, predominately indigenous, people. In the 1980’s, The United Fruit Company changed its name to Chiquita Brands International. Though stories past and present suggest that corporations consistently violate human rights, they act as though they are “too big to stand trial.”

MNCs are largely immune from legal accountability. By definition, MNCs are international entities. Their global reach often leads them to argue that a given court does not have jurisdiction over their actions. Therefore, finding a court that will hear a case and have the authority to enforce a ruling is a major challenge for a prospective plaintiff. Furthermore, many courts, including the International Criminal Court, fail to list corporations as judicial persons subject to investigation and prosecution. While courts could potentially punish executives instead of the entity as a whole, complex corporate structures make it difficult to pin liability on particular individuals. Even if a viable case is brought against a corporation, they generally have a distinct economic advantage over the plaintiff that allows them to employ superior counsel or settle the case out of court. On the rare occasion MNCs are found guilty in court, the punishments are often negligible. These factors perhaps explain why Colombia’s transitional justice system is among the first to charge MNCs with crimes against humanity.

Transitional Justice as a Model?

Transitional justice systems are established in the wake of a conflict and are a crucial component in peace and reconciliation processes. According the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), a non-profit that has been working with Colombia since 2005, transitional justice, among other things, works to make “access to justice a reality for the most vulnerable,” ensure “that women and marginalized groups play an effective role in the pursuit of a just society,” and  establish “a basis to address the underlying causeless of conflict and marginalization.” While one would hope and expect that every court system upheld these values, transitional justice systems are established with these particular humanitarian aims in mind. If the consortium of corporations actually did fund paramilitary groups, then it is imperative for peace that they are held accountable. An effective reconciliation process must necessarily give a voice to those most affected by the conflict and create a dialogue that addresses, deconstructs, and delegitimizes the conflicts motivating interests and actors. However, there is often a stark power imbalance between those driving conflict and those most affected by conflict. Unfortunately, these disparities in power translate into the traditional court room.

Far too often, corporate behemoths are able to marginalize the voices of those victimized by their interested pursuits. MNCs are able to bat away, or at least minimize, practically any legal challenge that comes their way. It is too early to argue that events in Colombia signify a turning point for corporate accountability. The charges against these MNCs were pressed by an impermanent court, under particular circumstances, have yet to be proven, and the implications of a guilty verdict remain to be seen. Multinational corporations continue to grow in size and influence, and corporate accountability is often demanded but rarely demonstrated. The fact that that a transitional justice system was among the first to explicitly charge MNCs with crimes against humanity is indicative of the way in which traditional justice systems generally preserve hegemonic interests rather than uphold justice.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colombia Charges Corporations with Crimes Against Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

Trade secrets are pieces of information that businesses or companies use to gain some sort of competitive advantage. In the United States, we have trade secret laws that allow companies to protect this valuable type of information from being stolen by other companies or individuals. Read on to learn everything you need to know about trade secrets, the laws that protect them, and the arguments for and against these protections.

What Are Trade Secrets?

Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, a trade secret is defined as:

Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable through appropriate means by other persons who might obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Some well-known tangible examples of trade secrets include:

• The recipe for Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chip Cookies
• The New York Times bestsellers’ list methodology
• The WD-40 formula
• The Twinkies recipe
• The recipe for McDonald’s Special Sauce
• The Coca-Cola recipe
• Google’s algorithm

Less tangible examples of trade secrets include consumer information or lists. Each of those secrets have made their corresponding products incredibly popular, but should they fall into the hands of competitors, they would lose their competitive advantage.

 What are Trade Secret Laws?

Trade secrets are protected by federal law, state law, and contracts between businesses and employees or associates.  This triple layer of protection differentiates them from, and in some cases makes them more effective than, patent laws. Trade secret law applies to a much wider range of information than other forms of intellectual property (IP) law, such as patents. Unlike patent protection, which expires after twenty years, trade secret protection does not expire.  Trade secret protection does not need to consist of information that is defensible by other IP laws.  Even if information does not qualify for patent, copyright, or trademark protection, it can still qualify for trade secret protection. A big, valuable difference between trade secrets and patents is how they’re disseminated to the public. A patented piece of information is owned by the patent holder; they release it into the public and in return get to profit off of it for as long as they own that patent. A trade secret stays secret, and gives the company its competitive value.

Trade secret protection, however, is not applied to information that is common knowledge or is publicly available. For example, if a telemarketing company used the entire phone book as a potential customer list, the company could not claim trade secret protection over the contents of the phone book. Moreover, unlike patents, trade secret protection can be bypassed if the information is obtained independently of the owner of the secret e.g. through reverse engineering or independent or accidental discovery.  The protection cannot be circumvented through improper means such as industrial espionage or misappropriation.

Perpetrators of misappropriation of trade secrets can be subject to federal and state civil and criminal liabilities; however, a company must be able to demonstrate that it undertook reasonable methods of protecting the alleged trade secrets in order for trade secret protective legislation to apply.  If the company cannot show that it undertook reasonable measures to protect the information, then it can lose its trade secret rights even if it is illegally obtained.

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act 

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act was created in 1979 and updated in 1985 in an attempt to create consistent American law across state borders. It was written on the heels of a Supreme Court decision — Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. — that legitimized the use of trade secret laws. After that court decision, many states created their own versions; however, given that many American companies operate across state lines, it’s understandable why consistency was desired.

As of 2013, 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands adopted the UTSA, the only exceptions being New York, Massachusetts, and Texas. Those states have their own laws that provide trade secret protections.

In addition to protecting the trade secrets of companies, the UTSA puts remedies in place for when the laws are breached. These include injunctive relief: essentially a court-ordered prevention from a company using its competitor’s trade secret it obtained, as well as provisions allowing the payment of damages.

What are the benefits of trade secret laws?

Proponents of trade secret protection argue that the law recognizes that a company’s realm of economically valuable information extends beyond patentable and copyrightable content. This gives companies protection from unfair competition. It also alleviates companies’ fears that former employees can weaken their competitive position in the market by working for competitors or selling information. Unlike patents, trade secret protection has no registration costs, takes effect immediately, avoids procedural legal encumbrances, and lasts as long as the company needs.

Trade secret laws also promote collaboration, as strange as that may sound. If two companies embark on some sort of research mission together, they are more likely to be forthcoming and fully collaborative if they know that their confidential information is protected by law.

The Downsides of Trade Secret Laws

Opponents of trade secret protection argue that it gives businesses far too much power. Since the protection lasts until the secrets are discovered, the public’s use of beneficial innovations and freedom of information is restricted in the service of individual profits. Contractual trade secret restrictions can harm employees’ employment availability because the confidentiality and non-compete requirements remain with them after they change employers. These employees are limited in where they are able to work after changing jobs and limited in the knowledge and skills they can employ at any subsequent employment they find.

Case Study: Coca-Cola

The formula for Coca-Cola is one of the most famously sought-after trade secrets in the world. Coke actually loves the mystery surrounding its formula and tries to hype the public up for publicity and marketing reasons:

The history behind the Coca-Cola formula is fascinating, and makes it the perfect example of a trade secret. Starting in 1887, one of the first presidents of the company, Asa Chandler, demanded that no one ever write down the formula again for fear it could be stolen. According to the company, at any given time only two individuals actually know the formula. It is passed down in a ritualized manner, and those two individuals never travel together in case anything tragic ever happens.

New Horizons in Trade Secret Laws

As the world becomes increasingly globalized and the internet is an increasingly important part of the business landscape, trade secret laws are seeing some changes. Trade secret theft is much easier when companies have access to hackers and other tools of corporate espionage. Also, our companies have become not just fluid across state borders, but across international borders as well. American companies are sometimes worried that international competitors, who aren’t necessarily held to the same laws as American companies, will gain hold of valuable trade secrets.

Action in Congress 

In light of these concerns, American lawmakers have attempted to strengthen trade secret protections. Earlier this year, two bills were introduced in the House (H.R. 5233: “Trade Secret Protection Act of 2014”) and in the Senate (S. 2267: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014.) Both of these bills would create a private federal civil remedy option for companies whose trade secrets have been stolen.

International Action

China, now one of the United States’ most important global trade partners, has attempted to expand its trade secret protections. It is currently working on a trade secret law — it’s in draft status right now — but it’s part of a larger project that China is working on to expand its competition law protections. This action came after the United States had strong disagreements and legal action against China over the possible stealing of trade secrets:

The European Union is also working on strengthening trade secret protection laws. In May 2014, the EU clarified its position on trade secrets, and committed to making consistent laws throughout member countries. A press release from the EU published last winter read:

There are substantial differences in the laws in place in EU countries on protection against trade secret misappropriation. Some countries have no specific laws on the issue. Businesses find it difficult to understand and access the systems of other Member States and, whenever they become victims of misappropriation of confidential know-how, they are reluctant to bring civil court proceedings as they are not sure the confidentiality of their trade secrets will be upheld by the courts. The current fragmented system has a negative effect on cross-border cooperation between business and research partners and is a key obstacle to using the EU single market as an enabler of innovation and economic growth.

Technology and Trade Secrets 

Another new frontier in the issue of trade secret protections is protection for technological innovations, such as technology design concepts. Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc. was heard in California earlier this year. In this case, a small company called Altavion claimed that a process it had invented to authenticate documents had been stolen by one of its competitors, and that the process was a trade secret. The court ruled in Altavion’s favor.

Conclusion

Trade secrets are an incredibly important part of the American business structure. Many of the United States’ most well-known companies and products have some involvement in trade secrets. While the U.S. has taken admirable actions to protect those secrets, there are constantly new frontiers in the issue, including the advents of technology and globalization. As those topics expand, we should expect to see trade secret protections expand as well.

Resources

Primary

Uniform Trade Secrets Act: Text

European Commission: Commission Proposes Rules to Help Protect Against the Theft of Confidential Business Information

Additional 

Marquette IP Law Review: Why Do We Have Trade Secrets

Nature: The Good and Bad of Trade Secrets

IP Watchdog: Trade Secrets and Employee Mobility

WIPO: Patents or Trade Secrets?

Unemed: What You Need to Know About Patents and Trade Secrets

King Hall IP Law Assocation: History of Trade Secret Law

Uniform Law Commission: Trade Secrets Act Summary

PeterToren: Criminal Trade Secret laws

Listverse: How Trade Secrets Are Kept

TMS: Federal Trade Secrets Crimes

Hahn Loeser: Does Trade Secret Law also provide patent protection?

Journal of Economic Perspectives: Some Economics of Trade Secret Law

Association of Corporate Counsel: New Texas Trade Secret Law Helps Big Businesses

Beck Reed Riden: Does the Government Favor Businesses With Trade Secrets?

JD Supra: Technology Design Concepts Can be Trade Secrets

Managing IP: Trade Secrets Get Sexy

Buffalo Business First: Looming Changes in Trade Secret Protection

Time: Is this the real thing? Coca-Cola’s Secret Formula “Revealed”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trade Secret Laws: Competitive Advantages at Work appeared first on Law Street.

Corporations are legal people, right? They can commit crimes, they can sue other people, and they can vote…at least with their checkbooks. So why aren’t animals people? They can walk and have feelings and be family members; plus, they are just so cute when dressed in people clothes.

There is a real movement among animal rights groups to make animals people in the eyes of the court. Okay, okay. They don’t actually want them to be people, but they do want them to have legal standing to sue. And since people have taken animals to court before, I think it is only fair to finally give animals the right to retaliate.

People Trying Animals (In Court, Not at the Dinner Table)

Admittedly, the concept of a person suing an animal is an archaic one not used today, as far as I know. But at one point in history, mostly in Europe, it was an actual thing. A serial murderer pig kills a loved one in their sleep? Prosecute. A trained dog robber takes out one of their targets? Put that killer on the stand and condemn him to death. If they are capable of committing the crime, then they should be made to do the time.

Courtesy of I Can Has Cheezburger.

Pretty much, if it could walk, crawl, fly, or swim, it could walk, crawl, fly, or swim itself to court. This includes insects (though that one baffles me the most. When an insect causes me harm, I practice a much quicker, more vigilante sort of justice.) And murder wasn’t even all these villainous animals could be and were charged with. A donkey once allegedly committed bestiality, but apparently she had enough character witnesses, one being the local reverend, to be acquitted (the same could not be said of her human paramour, who was sentenced to death). And sparrows were taken in for being too loud in church (I totally get this one. I have wanted to sue birds who were being too loud outside my bedroom window at ridiculously early hours of the morning on more than one occasion.)

Among other animals tried were those accused of being familiars to local witches, those suspected of being werewolves, and one particularly scary rooster – yes I said rooster, not hen – who laid a Satan-spawned egg containing a cockatrice (which, according to Wikipedia, is basically a two-legged dragon with a rooster’s head.)

Not only are the offenses serious, but so are the punishments when convicted. A pig was once “sentenced to be “mangled and maimed in the head forelegs,” and then – dressed up in a jacket and breeches – to be hung from a gallows in the market.” A sow was similarly convicted and sentenced to be hanged, though without even the dignity of a new set of clothes, which must have been extra humiliating.

On the other hand, the court was nothing if not fair. Sometimes the animals would be acquitted, such as in the case of the kindly donkey. My favorite ruling came when a group of rats failed to make it to court. Luckily, they had a good lawyer who pointed out that, as they were a wandering band, they may not have received their summons, and, even if they had, they may have been too afraid of the local cats. Since court is only a requirement when it could be gone to safely and the townspeople refused to lock up their pets, the case was dropped.

Animals Trying People (In Court, Not in the Woods Behind Your House)

In a more modern and more American context, animals and the court are becoming an issue once again. Only this time, it is the animals’ turn for revenge.

In recent years, it has become a point of question as to whether animals should have the legal standing to sue humans for animal rights violations. For example, should a cow be able to sue its potential slaughterer for not making it unconscious before turning it into dinner? Should Tommy the chimpanzee be able to sue his captor for keeping him imprisoned?

As crazy as being sued by your own pet may be, the other side of the standing is that without allowing animals to sue, there may not be another form of redress for these creatures. To have standing, you have to have an injury. When an animal is injured, a human most likely would not be able to get standing on behalf of the creature as the human was not the one injured. Thus, unless animal rights proponents can think of more creative defenses to stop the harmful actions, there is little that can be done to protect the animal.

The downside of allowing animals to become legal people is that they’d become legal people. Detractors worry that granting animals people status will only blur the line between man and beast. As if they think the right to sue is the last distinction we have to tell the difference between a fellow human and a zebra. If a cat can hire a lawyer and litigate, albeit through the help of a guardian, then what is to stop it from driving a car or applying for the position that you yourself wanted?

Courtesy of GIPHY.

The disparagers also say that this would encourage frivolous lawsuits – something that no true human would ever do. In a more reasonable stance, some animal suit critics are afraid that if animals can sue, they will sue such organizations as medical research labs and zoos, which in turn could shut down places that theoretically could help humans and the animals themselves.

If this debate interests you, I encourage you to do some research. You won’t believe the fascinating things you will find, and, at the very least, you can see some really clever titles. (My favorites are Monkey See, Monkey Sue and So Three Cows Walk Into Court….)

So far, animal suits have not been successful, but what do you think? Should the courts start allowing whales and snails and things with tails to take the stand?  

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [istolethetv via Flickr].

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Standing on Four Legs: Animals and the Judicial System appeared first on Law Street.

RANT WARNING: Be advised, this post may cause bouts of annoyance, defeatism, and pessimism.

Courtesy of Wifflegif

Initially, I planned to write an upbeat post about the recent celebrations of pride happening across the country: the Puerto Rican Day Parade, LGBT Pride, America’s success in the World Cup, and the Fourth of July, to name a few. I thought it would be interesting to extrapolate from these events a larger analysis of celebrating (or not) one’s identity. And then damn Hobby Lobby happened. Womp womp.

Last week, the Supreme Court held in two cases collectively referred to as Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on the basis of religious beliefs. Specifically, the Court found that the ACA’s contraception mandate was not the “least restrictive” way for the government to implement this law and thus it created too substantial a burden on the religious freedoms of the companies at issue. In reaching this conclusion, the Court pointed to a less restrictive workaround in the ACA for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.

More broadly, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued in her 35-page, no-I’m-not-retiring-yet-assholes, dissenting opinion, Hobby Lobby stands for the principle “that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

That’s right: corporations are indeed people. Those legal entities (which, by the way, are created for the purpose of separating the individuals involved from the corporate entity so that those individuals may be shielded from legal liability) apparently eat, sleep, breath, love, and pray? They sound more human than Darth Vader Cheney.

And as persons, corporations can also speak freely (i.e., wholly bankroll political campaigns) and freely exercise their religion (i.e., infringe on a woman’s reproductive rights).

Hell, with the direction in which this Court is taking corporate personhood, businesses — like any actual individual person in this country — may be able to discriminate on a wider scale. What happens when a business owner’s religious beliefs clash with, say, Title VII’s ban on discrimination in employment? What happens when a business owner acts on his belief that being gay is a sin? In answering these questions, I keep seeing the Jim Crow days when business owners were free to discriminate on the basis of race; I keep seeing the 1980s when they were openly homophobic and sexist. That idea is indeed what makes this “a decision of startling breadth,” as Justice Ginsberg put it.

Sure, I understand that slippery-slope, parade-of-horribles arguments are necessarily illogical. But tell that to African Americans who lived through the aftermath of Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate-but-equal holding. Yes, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Hobby Lobby, did promise that the ruling would not open the door to discrimination (exemptions to our anti-discrimination laws). Call me cynical, call me a blasphemer, but frankly I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this Court’s word — this Court that has been so adept at totally flouting precedent and stare decisis when it suits its political ends. Remember Citizens United? Bush v. Gore anyone?

Courtesy of DPMS via Flickr

In fact, we need look no further than last Thursday. Just days after the Court issued its Hobby Lobby ruling, it granted an unsigned emergency order in a new case involving Wheaton College, finding that the very workaround it had hailed as a less restrictive means by which the government could implement the ACA was also unconstitutional — that it substantially burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. What on Earth?! In the span of less than a week Hobby Lobby has already gone further than Hobby Lobby!

So now I sit here wondering what’s next. I wonder how far down this road the Supreme Court will take us. Debbie Downer over here, I know. But this is seriously like the worst season finale ever.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Down the Hobby Lobby Rabbit Hole: Are Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, an uproar over General Mills’ new legal terms caused a great deal of commotion, so much so that the company reversed the changes within a few days. While things have calmed down, it is nevertheless important to examine what could have been a dangerous change to consumer legal rights. 

General Mills, a major company in the food industry, recently underwent a change in its legal terms on Thursday, April 17. The affect the changes had on consumers was extremely unfair.  Under the new legal terms of General Mills, consumers that interact with the company in ways such as downloading a coupon from a website, joining their group on Facebook, enter a sweepstakes, or other such actions would have to give up their right to sue the company. Instead, costumers would be forced to solve their disputes with the company through arbitration or negotiation. Clever, right?

When asked to comment about the new policy, General Mills spokesperson Mike Siemienas noted that buying a General Mills product or ‘liking’ one of the company’s pages on Facebook would not bar an individual from suing. However, he did note that if someone liked a page in order to download a coupon, that action would constitute as ‘joining the General Mills online community’ and the right to sue would be forfeited.

Thankfully, the added language to General Mills’ legal terms evoked a strong response from consumers of the company’s brands. People took to the internet to protest the changes, and their efforts did not go without notice. It only took a few days for General Mills to revert back to their old legal terms and issuing an apology about the changes to consumers‘ rights.

If these changes were so unpopular, what could have prompted the company to issue new legal terms in the first place?

Recently, General Mills had to pay large sums of money for losses in legal suits. For example, the company paid a sum of 8.5 million dollars over a lawsuit involving the Yoplait brand’s product Yoplus. In response, the company tried to prevent other cases by preventing many of its consumers from being able to sue. The tactic here, called ‘forced arbitration,’ aims to minimize the costs of legal action taken against a company. If the General Mills’ legal changes had stayed in place, the policy would have prevented many consumers from filing suit against the company in court. Those who took such actions that would prevent them from suing under the policy would have had to enter into arbitration to settle their claim. Under forced arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision is binding, and so consumers would have also lost any chance of appeal. Moreover, under forced arbitration, individuals are not permitted to sue, enter into a class action law suit, or appeal any decision that has been reached.

It is fortunate that General Mills decided to rescind their new legal changes; however, the example is but one among many actions companies that have taken to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. While it is important to note that the voice of angry consumers can evoke changes in company policies, there are other laws and policies in effect that limit consumer legal rights.

In 2008, a Whataburger in Texas placed a sign on their window saying that once customers entered, they forfeit the right to sue the company. While this is perhaps an extreme example, there are many other companies that contain clauses in their legal terms that prevent customers from suing and entering into class action lawsuits. Public Citizen, a consumer advocate non-profit, lists on their website companies that contain such clauses in their legal terms. Among the many corporations are Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Wells Fargo, American Express, Dell, Toshiba, Starbucks, Netflix, and the list continues.

It is alarming that there are so many companies operating in this country that contain provisions in their legal terms that basically prevent consumers from exercising their rights. When consumers enter into forced arbitration with these companies to settle claims, they are placed into binding agreements with arbitrators who usually take the company’s side.

Non-profits such as Public Citizen can only do so much to counter the tactics of large corporations. That is why it is encouraging that the response from angry consumers forced General Mills to back down on its new legal policy. The fact that so many people were outraged over the changes caused the company to realize that these legal changes could have resulted in a loss of many consumers. This example shows that consumers do have power to fight back against unfair legal policies. If people continue to band together and withhold business from companies with such policies, other changes could be forthcoming.

[New York Times] [The Atlantic] [NACA] [CNN Money] [Public Citizen]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [ GeneralMills via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post A Worrisome Precendent for Consumer Legal Rights appeared first on Law Street.

“Ho Ho! Hey Hey! Birth control is here to stay!” Or is it?

Just when we think that the debate about contraception coverage has been laid to rest, another group of angry women are chanting outside of the supreme court and fighting for their right to be insured for their contraceptives. Although this time is a little different. This fight against contraception coverage was not brought about by a religiously affiliated group or a non profit religious organization, but by two corporations whose owners have certain religious beliefs. Thus, the debate regarding contraception coverage under the affordable care act continues, leading to the convening of the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday March 25, 2014.

What is the background regarding this debate?

A provision of the affordable health care act requires many employers to provide a variety of birth control methods to female employees who have comprehensive insurance coverage. This law does not apply to all employers due to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents law from substantially burdening an individual’s free exercise of religion. With this act, it was decided that the responsibility to provide birth control to employees was not extended to religious employers such as churches and religiously affiliated groups.

Who are the challengers?

This case has been brought to the supreme court by two for-profit corporations who argued that their businesses are run under religious principles. This includes the Hobby Lobby, arts and crafts chain that is run by a Christian family and Conestoga Wood Supplies, a cabinet making company owned by a Mennonite family.

The argument of the government:

The requirement of corporations to pay for contraceptives for female employees is an insurance that that all women will have equal opportunity and access to services regarding their health care. It is not the right of the employers to decide which form of contraception is best for their female employees, because that is the job of their doctor. It is believed that the corporations providing of birth control will lead to less abortions overall.

The argument of the two corporations:

They are not rejecting all forms of birth control, but instead feel that covering the costs of certain methods such as condoms, birth control pills and diaphragms would be within the boundaries of their religion. Now, there are various methods of birth control, but the main ones that are in contention include emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill because the corporations feel if they comply, they are condoning abortion.

What will the outcome be?

We will have to wait and see. A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected in June. It is for the court to decide whether the challengers have the right to object to this birth control coverage of specific types of contraception under the 1993 Religious Restoration Act mentioned above. This would mean that the religious beliefs of the corporations were, “substantially burdened”, which is of course up for the Supreme Court to decide.

Where I stand:

There is a large difference between a for-profit company and a non-profit, religiously affiliated organization. In my opinion, there is difference between who should cover birth control and who has the right to opt out. Corporations are now trying to play the religion card, which is a very slippery slope. Let’s think about this. There are many for-profit businesses out there with owners who most likely have some religious affiliation or another. Simply because a business owner closes their doors on Sunday or considers themselves a Christian should not give them the easy way out for covering the birth control of employees, as is the law under the affordable care act. Once some corporations are granted their “religious liberties”, who is to say that not all corporations with a religiously practicing owner can opt out of paying for birth control. These companies are not religiously affiliated, they are not non-profit and they need to pay to cover their employee’s birth control.

For more information, to see the protesters and to decide for yourself:

[Reuters] [The New York Times]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Not Another Contraception Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Lovelies, Halloween is upon us. Yay! If you’re a hippy dippy, wannabe Pagan goddess like me, you’re super pumped for the veil between the living and the dead to be at its thinnest — heightening the potential spiritual connectedness across different planes of being.

OR. If you’re just an awesome, stressed out person who’s working hard and looking for an excuse to party hard on a Thursday night, you’re probably equally as excited.

Because Halloween is arguably the best party night of the year. Why? Because it’s the one night of the year that everyone can wear the most fabulous costumes EVER. Dressing up as someone other than yourself means you can let loose, free your inhibitions, and revel in the freedom of character playing for a little while. AKA — partying on a Thursday night just got a zillion times better.

Just make sure that your costume isn’t a racist abomination to humanity, OK? Here are some tips to make sure your costume is fun and also not offensive.

Sheesh, I love Franchesca Ramsey, don’t you? I’d let her tell me what to wear any day.

But unfortunately, this week, Chesca’s not the only person who’s doling out fashion advice. Clifford Chance, a gigantic, international law firm, recently distributed a memo titled, “Presentation Tips for Women.” Cue barfs all around.

Seriously though. This memo makes me want to march right over to Clifford Chance’s New York office, roll up a stack of the memos, and beat its author over the head with my new paper weapon. Ya know, like how your mom used to smack your dog on the butt with last month’s copy of Food & Wine for peeing on your kitchen floor again? (Was it just my mom who did that? Moving on.)

Anyway! This memo had a bunch of super handy tips for its vagina-laden employees. Among them were gems like, “Stand up,” “Don’t wave your arms,” “Practice hard words,” don’t giggle, squirm, or pepper your sentences with awkward interludes of “um,” “uh,” “like,” and “OK.”

Because every presentation I’ve ever seen delivered by a woman involved her sitting on the floor, flailing her arms about, while stuttering over multi-syllabic words. Honestly.

This is how women give presentations never.

And it just gets worse. Clifford Chance went on to advise its lady lawyers not to “dress like a mortician,” to choose business suits over nightclub attire, not to show any cleavage, and to keep your knees together, so no one can see your hoo-ha up that skirt.

Again, because every woman I’ve seen giving a presentation shows up looking like Morticia Adams in a push-up bra, flashing her party-favor panties for the entire audience to see.

The last, and possibly most ridiculous, piece of advice in this infuriating memo, was to advise the women of Clifford Chance to “Think Lauren Bacall, not Marilyn Monroe.”

I can’t. I can’t even. There’s just so much here.

Let’s start by remembering that we’re talking about LAWYERS here. Women who graduated from law school. And managed to pass the Bar Exam. And survive the undoubtedly rigorous interview process to get hired at Clifford Chance in the first place.

Something tells me these are women who know how to get dressed in the morning, am I right?

Something also tells me that these are women with fairly advanced literacy skills. Like, I’m sure they can read and write pretty damn well. Once again, they graduated from LAW SCHOOL. So, advising them to “practice hard words” before a presentation is a bit like asking a professional writer to practice stringing sentences together with some Hooked on Phonics.

Chelsea Handler knows what’s up.

And this crap about cleavage? I’m sorry, are breasts not work appropriate attire? No? OK then, I’ll just take them off and leave them at home, along with my detachable Kim Kardashian hair extensions and stick-on nails.

Seriously, this practice of regulating and shaming women’s bodies through a dress code has got to stop. A garment that exposes cleavage on one woman might by full-coverage for the next. What we’re talking about here isn’t clothing, it’s bodies, and which ones are and are not professionally acceptable.

Because this memo isn’t advising against certain necklines — in this case, specifically low-cut ones. It’s not worried about what kind of dress or top you’re wearing. Instead, it’s worried about how you’re filling it out. And that’s bullshit. Boobs are boobs, they’re not going anywhere, and they take up physical space beneath your clothing.

And if you’ve got human cranium-sized ones, like I do, they are consistently challenging to clothe and carry around. I spend more than enough time and money trying to figure out how to keep my boobs acceptably covered up without having to worry about my boss writing a memo about how distracting and unprofessional they are. So to the memo-writing busybodies of Clifford Chance, I advise you to get over it, and let your boob-bearing lawyers do their jobs in peace.

Finally, this crap about Lauren Bacall versus Marilyn Monroe? I actually feel like I’m watching the rivalry between Vivian Kensington and Elle Woods play out on Legally Blonde. This shit is ridiculous.

Elle Woods is outraged.

Not only is this comparison completely silly — we’re talking about unattainably beautiful movie stars from over half a century ago here, and neither of them exactly dressed in law firm-friendly business suits — but it’s also implicitly racist.

Clifford Chance’s ideal woman is inescapably white. If the firm expects its women to emulate Lauren Bacall — a stupid, objectifying expectation to begin with — what are its lawyers of color supposed to do? Bleach their skin and straighten their hair? What about its lady lawyers who are queer and don’t present their gender as feminine? (On second thought, those women probably just don’t get hired.)

The point is, Clifford Chance’s “Presentation Tips for Women” aren’t just sexist, they’re racist, heteronormative, objectifying, and condescending to boot. And sadly, they aren’t atypical of the corporate culture of many white-collar workplaces. Clifford Chance just had the gall to put it into writing.

So this Halloween, maybe dress up as a Clifford Chance lawyer who’s breaking all the rules. Or, just go toilet paper their office. Either way.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It Gets Worse: Clifford Chance Gives Style Tips to Its Lady Lawyers appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, the government reopened and raised the debt ceiling. YAY! We don’t all have to worry about getting flushed down the proverbial economic toilet.

At least not for another three months, when Congress has decided to do this all again.

It’s like a quarterly, let’s-freak-everyone-the-fuck-out party.

Awesome. (Not really.)

Anyway! Now that the government has reopened for a little while, some of the nation’s most influential businessmen are speaking out about it. And you know what they’re saying?

Who the hell cares?!

No, but that’s really what they’re saying.

In a recent interview with Jason Calacanis, former Facebook employee and venture-capitalist millionaire Chamath Palihapitiya claimed that the government was pretty much useless—so who gives a crap if it shuts down? According to him, corporations hold the real power in the U.S. these days.

“Companies are transcending power now,” said Palihapitiya. “We are becoming the eminent vehicles for change and influence, and capital structures that matter. If companies shut down, the stock market would collapse. If the government shuts down, nothing happens and we all move on, because it just doesn’t matter.”

This is interesting, folks.

Palihapitiya’s words are both frighteningly true and laughably false, all at the same time.

On the one hand, it’s true that for many of us, life continued as usual, despite the government shutdown. For example, as I interviewed folks last week for a book I’m writing about conservatism in present-day America, many of them had almost zero knowledge about the government shutdown.

Why not?

Because they were busy, and hadn’t been paying much attention to the news. Oh, and because it must not really matter anyway, if the only way they could know about the shutdown was by devoting a portion of their day to catching up with CNN (or Fox News, unfortunately). Their daily lives weren’t affected at all.

But, if Facebook—or some other multi-billion dollar corporation—had suddenly gone belly-up, these folks would know about it. Absolutely. Remember the financial crash of 2008? When the economy flounders, so does everyone else in the United States.

Corporations, whether or not they’re functioning properly, make people pay attention. But a white, domed building filled with a bunch of bickering Congress people? Not so much.

But that doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t matter, as Palihapitiya claims. This government shutdown was relatively short-term, and had it remained closed for a longer period of time, many more people would have felt the burn.

Nonetheless, tons of people were seriously affected. Boatloads of government employees were furloughed without pay, and millions of people who receive some form of government assistance were left out in the cold.

So, when Jason Calacanis tweets about how little the government shutdown matters—echoing the same sentiments as his interview subject, Palihapitiya—we can just grit our teeth and laugh at the skewed viewpoint of the über-rich.

Is the shutdown proving to many that the government really doesn’t do that much for them? Have you been impacted personally yet? Just asking. (@Jason)

Because honestly, Jason, lots of people were personally impacted by the government shutdown. But they were probably women, or poor, or of color, or all of the above. And you’re none of those things. Your crass assumption that, just because you haven’t been affected then clearly no one has, is hilariously out of touch.

Except it’s not that hilarious, because, let’s face it—you have a ton of power.

While Jason and Palihapitiya might be wrong about the government being inconsequential, they’re right about one thing. Big money corporations matter A LOT. They have the power to make or break our economy, and by extension, to make or break all of our lives. If the economy tanks, we’re all going down with it. At least, those of us who aren’t rich enough to charter a private jet out the mess.

And the lower down we are on the socio-economic ladder, the further we’ll fall if the economy goes to shit. Poor people, women, people of color, queer people, disabled people—the list can go on—will be hit the hardest by a major economic stumble.

So, it’s not really that funny when venture capitalist millionaires prove themselves to be incredibly out of touch. Because they have the power to make or break our economy and our livelihoods. They need to be at least mildly aware of what it’s like down here, in order to keep what’s going on up there from destroying us all.

So, Mark Zuckerberg and friends? Please check your privilege. While you earn your billions, we still need to pay our rent.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Victoria Pickering via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Facebook Pays Your Rent appeared first on Law Street.