Another college is in the news, accused of mishandling a rape case. A female student at Old Dominion University who reported that she was raped in her own dorm room says she was denied a medical exam until after campus police had interrogated her for eight hours. The assault took place in October 2014 at the Old Dominion University campus in Virginia. Late Wednesday, the woman’s lawyer, Laura Dunn, filed a complaint against the university, accusing the school of mishandling the case and violating federal law.

The woman, who was not named in the complaint obtained by the Associated Press, wrote that she booked an appointment at a local medical center to get an exam after she was assaulted. But when she told campus police about what happened, officers wouldn’t let her leave. They took her to their department where they denied her food, water, and bathroom breaks. They interrogated her for eight hours, asking questions like “do you like rough sex?” and saying, “I’m just trying to find the crime here,” implying that it was her own fault that she was raped.

My alma mater is out here treating rape victims like criminals. And y’all wonder why people don’t come forward. #ODU https://t.co/SJT4MsCZ33

— Kris (@thatkblife) October 14, 2016

The way the campus police treated the student caused her stress and anxiety disorders. “After the entire day of being victimized by your police department, I was left feeling paranoid and scared as if I was the criminal,” she wrote in a personal statement attached to the complaint. The man, who was not a student at the university, was never charged with a crime.

Said it before and I’ll say it again, college “police departments” should be banned. https://t.co/eWseSI028R

— Bryan Beal (@bryanrbeal) October 14, 2016

The complaint accuses the school of violating federal law by not informing the woman of the importance of preserving evidence by getting a forensic exam right away–which she wanted to do, but wasn’t allowed–and not letting her know that she had the right to not report the incident to police until after being examined. She was also not informed that she could seek a protective order against the man, what her counseling options were, or the possibility to change her living situation. She was not even allowed to move out from the dorm where the assault took place until after getting a diagnosis from a psychologist. The school also failed to add the assault to the school’s “crime log” until after a reporter asked about it.

“This validated to me that Old Dominion University never took my sexual assault seriously and does not care for me as one of their students,” she wrote.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Old Dominion Student Who Reported Rape Was Interrogated for 8 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

In such a celebrity-obsessed society, famous peoples’ identities are sometimes co-opted for other reasons. However, American law does protect identities, to some extent, through something called “the right of publicity.” Read on to find out about whether the laws we have in place to protect rights of publicity are adequate or lacking.

What is the right of publicity?

The right of publicity protects a person’s right to control the commercial use of elements of his or her identity e.g. their name, voice, or likeness. It allows individuals whose identities have been misappropriated to bring civil claims against the offending entities. In several estates, it extends beyond the death of the relevant individuals, enabling their estate or heirs to bring infringement claims on their behalf.

However, the nature and extent of publicity rights protections varies from state to state. For example, Indiana allows publicity rights claims to be brought for misappropriation of an individual’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, distinctive appearance, gestures or mannerisms.” Rights in these identity elements are protected up to 100 years after the individual’s death. Indiana grants uncommonly expansive publicity rights protection. Because there is no federal right of publicity and there are many differences in protection among the states, many publicity rights claimants often resort to forum shopping. That means that they figure out what court or jurisdiction they think will be friendliest to their case, and bring the case there.

The possibility of forum shopping creates a  “race to the bottom” of the First Amendment ladder. Given the vast reach of entertainment content due to electronic broadcasting and the internet, content providers have to tailor their broadcasts to the rules of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in order to protect themselves from publicity rights claims. Because social media allows so many permutations of appropriating elements of a person’s identity, the range of actions that can infringe on publicity rights is not entirely clear.  Moreover, in many jurisdictions, the publicity rights laws have not developed enough to keep pace with the increasing possibilities of infringement created by the ability to use the internet.

Who thinks the current laws are adequate?

Proponents of the adequacy of current publicity rights laws argue that claims about the need for a federal publicity right are ill-informed because the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125) already creates federal standards for publicity rights claims. This act allows plaintiffs to file a federally based claim for infringement. Also, the differences in state publicity laws reflect the needs of different jurisdictions. The fact that certain states do not have such laws may reflect a reasoned and considered policy determination of their legislatures and federalizing the right may undercut those legislative policy needs. Moreover, such a law would infringe on states’ rights to determine which claims may be brought in their courts. If the federal publicity right preempts the state laws, then it could easily overprotect some publicity rights and under-protect others. A uniform federal law couldn’t possibly account for the nuances of different states’ needs with respect to publicity rights. Furthermore, claimants often have difficultly forum shopping because many states have choice of law rules that determine where claims need to be litigated.

What’s the argument to change the laws?

Opponents of the adequacy of the current realm of publicity rights assert that a federal publicity right would be Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Publicity rights affect a number of issues relating to interstate commerce including what can be broadcast over several channels such as radio, television, and the internet. The rights affect multi-state advertising campaigns and the distribution of products between states as well. Furthermore, forum shopping makes it difficult for promoters to know when their actions will open them up to liability because it is not realistically possible for businessmen to cover themselves against 50 different jurisdictions’ rules and still effectively run business. This is especially true when a dead person’s rights are involved and the infringement claim involves media that is broadcast nationwide.

Even the claims under the Lanham Act are limited because federal law is interpreted differently in different geographic federal circuit jurisdictions and federal court decisions are not binding on the state courts within their jurisdiction. Moreover, the concept of what constitutes a person’s “likeness” varies between states so protected identity elements in one state may not be protected in another.  A federal publicity right statute may solve this problem but the current law does not. Furthermore, publicity rights laws are not always evolving at a pace commensurate with the increasing capabilities of potential infringers.

Conclusion

Publicity laws have run into some problems as the years go on. One big issue is the inconsistency between different states and jurisdictions, and the publicity laws they implement. Another issue is the proliferation of the internet specifically and technology in general. With the resources we now have, it’s entirely possible to create a facsimile of someone’s identity, particularly through tools like social media and photoshop. It’s important that we make sure that people remain in control of their own identities, without infringing on creativity. The current laws are apt in some ways, but could use some updating.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: Lanham Act

Additional

JD Supra: The Federalism Case Against a Federal Right to Publicity

Georgetown Law Journal: The Inalienable Right of Publicity

NY State Bar Association: Why a Reasonable Right of Publicity Should Survive Death: A Rebuttal

University of Georgia Law: Race to the Stars: A Federalism Argument for Leaving the Right of Publicity in the Hands of the States

Amy E. Mitchell, PLLC: Personality Rights

Chapman Law Review: Intellectual Property Expansion: The Good, The Bad, and the Right of Publicity

American Bar Association: Why a Federal Right of Publicity Statute is Necessary

International Trademark Association: Board Resolutions U.S. Federal Right of Publicity

IP Watchdog: The Right of Publicity: A Doctrine Gone Wild?

LegalZoom: What to Know About Rights of Publicity

Right of Publicity: State Statutes

Cornell University Law School: Right of Publicity Overview

Right of Publicity: Brief History of the Right or Publicity

Library of Congress: Privacy and Publicity Rights

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Publicity Law: The Line Between Creativity and Identity Theft appeared first on Law Street.

The minimum wage was first created to ensure that workers are protected from being underpaid for their work; however, given that national and local costs of living have varied over time, whether or not the minimum wage amounts are fair has been the main pillar of the  national debate for some time. Read on to learn about the minimum wage and all of the controversies and debates surrounding it.

Current Minimum Wage Laws

The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is a law passed by Congress that requires employees to be paid at least $7.25 per hour. The act took effect in 2009 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This law only applies to jobs that are under the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tipped workers may only be paid less than $7.25 an hour if their hourly wages plus tips match or exceed $7.25.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is a federal law that Congress passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Federal laws passed under that power are only effective if they pertain to an area that affects commerce between multiple states. Therefore, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Fair Minimum Wage Act only regulate wages in businesses that are involved in interstate commerce. Businesses that are not sufficiently involved in interstate commerce are not regulated by the federal law but may still be regulated by state or local minimum wage laws. If there are state or local minimum wage laws in effect in the area a (non-interstate commercial) business operates then those laws determine the minimum wage employees of such a business can be paid.

State minimum wage laws are very variable.

The map below represents the minimum wage in a number of states. Green indicates a state minimum wage that is higher than federal minimum wage, yellow shows states with no minimum wage laws, blue states have the same minimum wage as the federal minimum wage, and red states have minimum wage laws lower than the federal minimum wage.

Map of minimum wage variations by state, courtesy of the U.S. Department of Labor via Wikipedia.

According to the Department of Labor, the laws are interpreted as follows:

Federal minimum wage law supersedes state minimum wage laws where the federal minimum wage is greater than the state minimum wage. In those states where the state minimum wage is greater than the federal minimum wage, the state minimum wage prevails.

So why do we still have separate federal and state minimum wage laws? One reason is, of course, politics. The states that have lower minimum wage laws keep them on the books in part to protest what they see as too high of a federal minimum wage. There’s also a more practical application: there are certain workers, such as seasonal workers or those on small farms, who are exempt from the federal laws. In some cases, the state laws may still offer some parameters for those workers.

What are arguments for keeping the federal minimum wage as is?

Supporters of the current federal minimum wage argue that raising the minimum wage will diminish the job market in an economy that is already suffering. They argue that raising the minimum wage to benefit the poor is a shortsighted strategy. Since a majority of the poor (60 percent) are unemployed, raising the minimum wage only makes it more difficult for them to find jobs because it raises the value that they have to demonstrate in order to justify being hired. Moreover, most of the people receiving minimum wage pay are above the nation’s median income so most of the funds workers receive from a higher minimum wage won’t go to the impoverished.

Supporters of keeping the minimum wage law where it is also worry that the costs of a higher minimum wage would be passed on to the consumers, who may be struggling themselves. They reason that the money has to come from somewhere, and in many cases it would come from an increase in the price of goods. In general, it would make it more expensive for employers to hire employees, and have negative ramifications throughout many parts of the economy.

Another argument against raising the minimum wage stems from an idea about the purpose of the minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are often viewed as “stepping stones” for young people, or those looking to get back on their feet–not jobs for those who need to raise families or be permanently employed in that particular place of business. Those who subscribe to this argument tend to worry that with a higher minimum wage, these jobs become permanent paths rather than just stepping stones, and younger people will no longer be able to get their foot in the door.

What are arguments for increasing the minimum wage?

Those who argue in favor of increasing the current federal minimum wage argue that it does not even pay enough to keep a family of three above the poverty line. The average cost of living has increased by leaps and bounds, especially in larger cities. The minimum wage has not increased proportionately with inflation or the pay of the average worker. Today, the minimum wage is insufficient to keep a full-time working parent and one child out of poverty. At a bare minimum the federal minimum wage should be enough to keep a working parent and her child above the poverty line. Along the same lines, supporters of increasing the minimum wage point out that because those who work minimum wage jobs have such a difficult time making ends meet, many of them have to get some sort of government assistance, which is also a big problem for the economy.

That is why the Obama Administration is advocating for legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. This change would raise America’s GDP, and reduce income disparities between several population demographics.

Conclusion

The minimum wage, and its many derivations across the states, will always be a contentious and politicized issue. The actual economic implications of raising or lowering the minimum wage are difficult to glean, and the arguments are sharp. That being said, the minimum wage debate is far from over.

Resources

Primary 

US Senate: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007

Department of Labor: Minimum Wage

Department of Labor: History of Changes to the Minimum Wage Law

Department of Labor: Minimum Wage Laws in the States

Additional

Forbes: Why Raising the Minimum Wage Kills Jobs

Washington Post: Economists Agree: Raising the Minimum Wage Reduces Poverty

The New York Times: Raise That Wage

The White House: Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address

Atlantic: Minimum Wage Was Once Enough to Keep a Family of Three Out of Poverty

Economic Policy Institute: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Give Working Families, and the Overall Economy, a Much-Needed Boost

CNN: Raising Minimum Wage Won’t Lower Poverty

America’s Best Companies: Five Important Exceptions to Know Regarding Minimum Wage

The New York Times: Raising Minimum Wage Would Ease Income Gap but Carries Political Risks

Entrepreneur: Listen to Small Business: Don’t Increase the Minimum Wage

Deseret News: In Our Opinion: Don’t Raise the Minimum Wage

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debating Minimum Wage in America appeared first on Law Street.

A young woman in Houston, TX, claims that she was just fired for being pregnant. The woman, who worked as a case manager for the personal injury law firm Wayne Wright, reportedly told her employers that she was pregnant and would be requiring maternity leave. She claims that in response, the firm told her that they could not accommodate that request and that she would have to “choose her last day on the job.” Her job has since been terminated.

I could pretend that this is a crazy isolated incident, but I think we all know better than that. The United States takes pretty bad care of its expecting mothers–we are one of just a few countries that does not require paid maternity leave. In case you were curious, the only other nations that do not offer those benefits are Oman and Papua New Guinea.

When it comes to laws preventing employers from firing their employees because they’re pregnant, the United States does have the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law is supposed to prevent companies from discriminating against women for being pregnant, past pregnancies, or the possibility of future pregnancies. However, the law is a bit sparse, and has some serious loopholes. According to the law, companies must give women 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical reasons such as pregnancy and childbirth. However, that law only officially applies to companies with at least 50 employees, and the woman applying for the leave must have worked for the company for at least 12 months. Other parts of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act only apply if the company has more than 15 employees. Experts’ estimates about how many employees are actually eligible for 12 weeks of unpaid leave range from 20 percent to 59 percent.

This is obviously a very simplistic overview of the legal protections offered by the government to pregnant women–there are other state and local laws in place that provide some benefits. However, those laws are inconsistent and often inadequate. In general, the United States does a pretty miserable job of helping pregnant women keep their jobs.

The woman in Houston who is now suing is notable because if she’s telling the truth, the discrimination waged against her was of a very overt nature. Oftentimes, discrimination against pregnant women, or women who have the potential to become pregnant, is considerably more subtle. Sometimes women not hired or promoted because of they may become pregnant and require some sort of leave. Here’s an example: a husband and wife, both teachers, interviewed for very similar jobs. They both have similar work experience, although the wife also had a master’s degree. She was asked many questions about her personal life, including whether or not she’s planning on getting pregnant. The husband was not asked whether or not he plans to become a father–or really anything about his personal life in general. In a Reddit post about her experience, the aforementioned woman stated:

I was asked ‘Do you have children yet?’ I was taken aback so I just ended up saying ‘Nope, just cats.’ I’m child-free but I knew better than to state that in an interview for a teaching position. I was still nervous and in ‘interview mode’ so it didn’t really hit me until after how shitty it was to be asked that question.

Not only is that question blatantly illegal–Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents such inquiries–I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many men asked about their familial intentions in a job interview.

In some cases, the discrimination against young female employees is even less subtle. A few weeks ago, a web developer from Toronto named Lyndsay Kirkham was sitting next to a bunch of IBM executives out to a business lunch. According to her, they went on a bit of a rant about how they don’t hire young women because “they are just going to get themselves pregnant again and again and again.”

It’s also important to note that discrimination against pregnant women hits low-income families particularly hard. Women who work in jobs that require some degree of manual labor–such as retail, or food service, are often not provided the accommodations they need while pregnant. This may even force pregnant women to take unpaid leave, or quit their jobs.

Whether backhanded or overt, the discrimination in this country against pregnant and potentially pregnant women is real. This case in Houston is just one of countless examples, because the laws we have in place simply aren’t enough. Until the United States improves the ways in which it treats pregnant women, what happened at that Houston law firm will happen again and again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Ed Yourdon via Flickr]

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 It Happens Every Day: Pregnant Woman Fired for Being Pregnant appeared first on Law Street.

Though homelessness is not recognized as a protected class under the Hate Crime Prevention Act (HCPA), the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) has been tracking what it considers to be hate crimes for 15 years now. The coalition has documented more than 1,437 crimes against homeless people committed by housed individuals since 1999.

The FBI defines a hate crime as any “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” The NCH adamantly believes that targeting individuals solely because they lack a place to call home is just as serious as targeting them because of their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.

“There is a very high prevalence of violence against homeless people. They are sought out and targeted because of who they are, and folks are being injured and attacked in large numbers,” Jerry Jones, executive director of the NCH, explained in a phone interview.

In fact, while there have only been 132 homicides in the last 15 years that qualify as hate crimes, the number of homeless related homicides is almost three times as many, totaling 375 deaths since 1999.

These attacks are believed to be motivated by the housed perpetrators’ bias against homeless people. Jones explained that the perpetrators of these crimes “view homeless people as an easy target since they’re living out on the streets,” adding, “they seem to be guided by a twisted rationale that no one will care if they get  hurt.”

With 610,042 people found homeless on any given night across the United States, and with attacks occurring in 47 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, this is quickly becoming a problem that can no longer be ignored.

Who’s Keeping Track?

One of the most disturbing elements of these crimes is the fact that they are not being recorded. No one aside from the NCH tracks the victims of this particular crime, which is primarily the reason why the Coalition is trying to amend the HCPA to include homelessness as a protected class.

“It’s part of our mission to highlight these [violent] acts,” Jones said of the National Coalition for the Homeless. “It’s an issue that we’ve dedicated a lot of time and effort to, but the government has more resources.”

If homelessness were to become a federally recognized protected class, it would require the FBI to track crimes against the homeless the same way that it tracks crimes against other protected classes. It would also show that the government acknowledges not only that there is a problem, but also the fact that these people are worth protecting.

While the NCH publishes annual reports that provide a vivid account of the crimes committed against the homeless, it does not have the resources that the federal government has at its disposal. A complete and accurate count of these crimes will not be possible until the federal government takes over the data collection process.

This is a problem because until we know the extent of the issue, fixing it is relatively impossible. From the data compiled by the NCH it is clear that homeless people frequently suffer from beatings, rape, murders, and even being lit on fire at the hands of housed perpetrators. But the question remains: is this enough to constitute the creation of a new protected class under the HCPA?

The Violence Against the Homeless Accountability Act

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson seems to think so, introducing the Violence Against the Homeless Accountability Act (VAHA) last year. In a press release she states that “before we can solve the problem, we must understand the problem,” arguing that such legislation is needed to send the message that crimes against the homeless will not be forgotten or ignored.

Johnson is not alone in this belief either. Several states have taken it upon themselves to individually include homeless people as a protected class under their hate crime statutes. At least 11 states have passed some form of protection for the homeless as of 2012, but until homeless people are protected under federal legislation, the fight is far from over.

The Homeless Accountability Act only has a six percent chance of getting past committee in the House and only a one percent chance of being enacted. This is slightly lower than the average bill, which stems primarily from the fact that it has failed to garner support from Republicans who are opposed to any further expansion of the HCPA.

The Debate

There is a lot of trepidation about expanding the scope of existing hate crime laws as people are fearful that such an expansion will infringe on citizens’ freedom of speech and expression, criminalizing hateful “thoughts” rather than hateful acts (though the HCPA explicitly states it does not limit hateful thoughts or even hateful speech).

Another argument is that since homelessness is not an immutable characteristic like race, it does not warrant the same protection under the HCPA. Others believe that inclusion as a protected class is not necessary because existing laws are strong enough to deal with any discrimination directed toward the homeless.

Though it may be true that homelessness is not an immutable characteristic, the homeless are one of the most vulnerable groups in society, quite literally without a place to call home. They are veterans who served our country, struggling families who have had their homes foreclosed, and fellow citizens who no longer have the means or the mental capacity to support themselves.

They, of all people, deserve extra protection from senseless violence, yet current legislation has proven to be inadequate in protecting them from the violent actions of housed perpetrators. Until the homeless are protected under the federal hate crime statutes, the discriminatory violence they face will only increase and, sadly, continue to be largely ignored.

[The National Coalition for the Homeless’ Annual Report 2013]

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sebastian via Flicker]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crimes Against the Homeless: Who’s Keeping Track? appeared first on Law Street.

“There was a terrible accident. The car’s flipped, it’s on its side. It’s two vehicles and a Walmart truck,” reported one passerby in the wee morning hours of Saturday, June 7. The accident received heavy media coverage — the three-car pile up killed one and injured four. Among the injured was celeb Tracy Morgan, who needed surgery on his broken leg; he also suffered several broken ribs and a broken nose. The comedian, best known for his NBC gigs with “Saturday Night Live” and “30 Rock,” also lost his mentor and fellow funnyman James “Jimmy Mack” McNair. McNair was pronounced dead at the scene.

The driver of the Walmart truck, Kevin Roper, has been charged with vehicular homicide. He was said to be “driving recklessly” because he had not slept in 24 hours. As a result of this accident, debates over regulations for commercial truck drivers have sprung up across the country.

Hours-of-Service Regulations

July 1, 2013 marked the initiation of new hours-of-service regulations for truck drivers. The goal of the new regulations was to “improve safety for the motoring public by reducing truck driver fatigue,” according to a news release by The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

The new rules reduced the maximum average workweek for truck drivers from 82 hours to 70 hours. Drivers are required to rest for 34 consecutive hours, including two full nights’ sleep, before they can begin a new workweek. Lastly, drivers must take a 30-minute break within the first eight hours of their shifts. The DOT estimated that these changes would save 19 lives, prevent 560 injuries, and thwart 1,400 crashes each year. In crafting these changes, the DOT worked to prevent death, injury, and damage to the “motoring public.” While the shift was indeed positive, there could be more changes made to worker regulations. In this case, I do not blame Walmart nor the DOT for taking inadequate precautions.

Blame Roper

You’d think it would be common sense to take a nap and recharge before driving an 80-thousand-pound truck cross-country in the middle of the night. I don’t know Roper’s situation — he could have been depending on his paycheck for medical bills or rent or a variety of other inescapable obligations. But his ill-planned actions resulted in the loss of a life and myriad suffering.

Roper pleaded not guilty for the accident, and police are having a difficult time proving his lack of sleep. He claims that had he not hit a celebrity and killed a member of Morgan’s entourage, the consequences would have been far less severe. He even ranted on Twitter about the situation.

Driving while deprived of sleep is classified as reckless driving in the state of New Jersey, where the accident occurred. If hard evidence was found proving he had not slept in more than 24 hours, Roper could be sentenced up to ten years. It seems the only chance of obtaining this evidence would be a confession from Roper. And we all know that’s not going to happen.

I do not believe Roper is a hardened criminal, but someone who made a poor decision. We all make mistakes. When we’re young, we’re taught to think before we act, but that lesson doesn’t always stick. The real issue is that Roper’s lack of cognizance resulted in the loss of life.

The accident left McNair’s family in shambles. His 18-year-old daughter passed out at his funeral, where hundreds showed up to lend the family support. Roper took away a father’s opportunity to see his children grow up. Roper should take responsibility for cutting McNair’s life short and stop complaining about the amount of media coverage the case receives.

The federal government has done its part by enacting limitations on drivers’ workweeks. Maybe this change is not enough and should be further amended, but I’m not a truck driver so I really don’t know. Maybe some consultation with those in the industry could lead to even more appropriate guidelines. I do think Roper deserves to serve time for his actions and should retract his Twitter tirade.

If it were one of my family members in the crash, I would want to know that justice was served. I would want to know that changes would be made to protect my family, friends, and the rest of the motoring public. I would make an example of Roper to teach other truck drivers to think before they sit behind the wheel for overnight cross-country drives. Because au contraire to Roper’s opinion that this accident wouldn’t blow up if a star weren’t involved, a man was killed because of his actions, and his life was just as important as anyone else’s.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Sam Lehman via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tracy Morgan Accident Prompts Look at Commercial Driving Laws appeared first on Law Street.