Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

This is one of China’s most signifiant steps ever when it comes to protecting the legal rights of the LGBTQ community. The court awarded the plaintiff, “Mr. C,” the equivalent of $297. The decision states that workers cannot be discriminated against “based on their ethnicity, race, gender or religious beliefs,” according to the Washington Post.

“The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff without a legitimate reason” and “infringed on the plaintiff’s equal employment rights,” the ruling said.

The 29-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Mr. C” to protect his identity and his family, worked at Ciming Checkup, a health services firm, and was fired last year for his appearance as a man despite legally being considered a female. Mr. C claims he was mocked by some co-workers, and was told that he could damage the company’s reputation before he was fired.

LGBTQ activists praised the court’s decision. For one, the case was China’s first on transgender identity, and it resulted in a victory for the transgender individual. The outcome paves the way for China to institute future anti-discrimination laws in the workplace since workers currently are at the mercy of their employers.

“Personally, I think that in terms of employment discrimination, this judicial precedent goes beyond [current] legislation,” Wang Yongmei, the winning lawyer, said.

The victory marks a seminal moment for those pursuing LGBTQ acceptance in a country that restricts free speech, LGBTQ rights, and human rights more broadly.

The Chinese court’s decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent comments that workplace discrimination is perfectly legal. The DOJ released an amicus brief concerning a case between a company and a gay employee claiming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only covers sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite the court’s decision, the situation for the LGBTQ community in China is far from perfect. The gay and transgender communities in the country still feel silenced in public spaces. In the past year, Chinese police canceled an LGBTQ conference in the city of Xian, and a month after that internet regulators began to ban LGBTQ content online, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. C is proud that his lawsuit sets a precedent for future employees who may be wrongfully terminated, but also recognizes China–and the rest of the world–still has a long way to go.

“Although the case has ended, we still have a long way to go,” he said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever appeared first on Law Street.

Finally! The East Coast is getting some snow and that holiday feeling is everywhere. As the year comes to a close, many of us are reflecting on what we learned and what happened this year. So, what did 2016 meme to you? Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

It’s All About Russia Right Now

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claimed that Donald Trump and the GOP have known that Russia was trying to interfere in the election for a while–possibly even before October. Earnest suggested that Trump’s repeated invitations for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails meant that he knew what was going on. “It was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack-and-leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties and to the two campaigns,” Earnest said.

Presidential Spokesman Josh Earnest: Trump may have known Russia behind hacking before Election Day https://t.co/rINAuUMEGp

— Peter Eisner (@PeterEisner) December 14, 2016

It is now believed that Vladimir Putin himself was directly involved in the data breach because of a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. But Putin may have also wanted to undermine America’s rep as a global leader. And according to investigators, he’s likely a fan of the way that Trump views Russia.

After all these revelations, Trump, instead of demanding an investigation into why a foreign nation would interfere with our election, questioned why the White House only mentioned this issue after Hillary Clinton lost.

If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2016

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 RantCrush Top 5: December 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday many big cities saw thousands of low-wage workers taking to the streets, protesting in favor of a $15 minimum wage. Union activists, politicians, and church members joined the nationwide demonstrations and almost 200 people were arrested across the U.S.

Workers joined the cause in airports, travel hubs, and highways by walking off their jobs or blocking traffic. About 500 employees at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago took part in a strike, alleging unfair labor practices. Hundreds of people chanted slogans outside of the terminals while police officers had to put up gates to make room for travelers to walk past. “We’re not asking for special treatment, we’re asking for decent treatment. We’re asking for decent wages,” said Kisha Rivera, an airplane cabin cleaner at O’Hare.

Thousands of people planned to walk out from their jobs at different McDonald’s restaurants, according to organizers, and one of the chain’s restaurants in St Louis had its drive-through blocked by people for half an hour. A state senator in Massachusetts who sat down with protesters in the middle of a street in Cambridge was arrested. In North Carolina a reverend was arrested, and in Manhattan four local and state officials were arrested as well, after 200 protesters blocked traffic in the Financial District. By Wednesday morning, arrests were up to 26 in New York City, 36 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 39 in Detroit, and 40 in Los Angeles.

#Durham police have arrested NAACP NC President Rev. William Barber II #Fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/lPN0KRpOHz

— Derrick Lewis (@DerrickQLewis) November 29, 2016

We’re here and we can’t be moved! #Fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/0CMJScioco

— ATLRaiseUp (@ATLRaiseUp) November 29, 2016

Whether or not to raise the minimum wage is always a hot political topic. Liberal think tank Economic Policy Institute says that raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 per hour to $12 per hour would affect 35 million workers across the nation and help them get off government assistant programs. But conservative organization Employment Policies Institute argues that the raised costs of a higher minimum wage would result in fewer jobs and the closure of businesses.

President-elect Donald Trump has not been very clear on his stance on the minimum wage. At a Fox Business debate last year he said that wages are too high, but later denied having said that, and claimed he only meant that there’s no need to raise the minimum wage. And then this summer he said at a press conference that the federal “minimum wage has to go up” to at least $10, but only a few months earlier he said it should be up to each state to decide. At this point it’s unclear if he’s made up his mind on minimum wage policy.

If someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty. #Fightfor15

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 29, 2016

Politicians among 26 arrested this morning in Zuccotti Park #Fightfor15 protest, NYPD says: https://t.co/8pEoK3S2KY pic.twitter.com/di1Se39JH5

— DNAinfo New York (@DNAinfoNY) November 29, 2016

The main organizer behind the nationwide protests was the Fight for $15 movement, which is supported by many labor unions. Organizers said that they wanted to draw attention to more areas than just traditional low-wage jobs like fast-food restaurants, by focusing on all kinds of working class Americans. The tactic of protesting at places like airports rather than outside of restaurants, and trying to appeal to people in other fields, seemed to be successful. Workers from childcare facilities, individuals who work in healthcare, and even Uber drivers joined the cause. The question is whether Trump (and other politicians) will listen.

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 Hundreds Arrested at Multiple Minimum Wage Protests appeared first on Law Street.

Save money, live better…don’t work at Walmart?

Last week Walmart closed five stores in four states and only gave employees five hours notice. That’s right—five hours. Why the sudden closure? The retailer cited plumbing issues that could take up to six months to complete.

Courtesy of Giphy.

That’s right, Blanche Devereaux—something doesn’t add up here. Plumbing work, even extensive plumbing work, does not take six months to complete. Additionally, what are the odds that the plumbing systems of five geographically unrelated stores would all need repairs at the same time? The situation was ridiculous enough to warrant a proper lampooning from Larry Wilmore on Tuesday night’s episode of The Nightly Show. [Note: despite claiming problems with plumbing, none of the Walmart stores that were abruptly closed have filed for plumbing permits yet].

Walmart workers say that the company probably closed at least one store in retaliation against workers protesting for better pay and working conditions. [So that’s why they can justify shutting down stores and losing revenue from five stores for half a year]. Walmart does not want its workers to unionize. In fact, it never has.

Back in 2000 a group of Walmart butchers voted to unionize. After the butchers formed their union, Walmart stopped cutting meat in stores and only sold pre-packaged meat. This year, it appears Walmart has evolved its bullying tactics by closing entire stores rather than just closing down smaller sections.

A rather wacky theory has emerged online as to why Walmart has closed some of its stores, and it has nothing to do with plumbing or unions. Some Internet users believe that the military will be using the closed stores as shelters once Martial Law is declared.

Courtesy of Giphy.

All theories and conjectures aside, the reality is that more than 2,200 Walmart workers were laid off and given two months of severance pay. Will they be forgotten like the Walmart butchers, or will they find ways to stand up to their bully?

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Walmart Stores Shut Down After Giving Workers Only Five Hours Notice appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

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 SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Amazon is bigger than ever. As The New York Times reports, Amazon’s Kindle is at the top of the list for e-readers, the company launched new TV-streaming devices, and its Fire Phone was posed as a contender to the iPhone and other successful smartphones. But problems are piling up for the online retail giant. Wired Magazine declared the Fire Phone a failure and the new Fire TV Stick is backordered until January, according to CNET. Further, Amazon is in hot water with seemingly relentless criticism.

Literary agent Andrew Wylie recently denounced Amazon at a writers’ conference in Toronto, as the Guardian reports. Known to many as “the Jackal” for his business strategies, Wylie condemned Amazon’s powerful grip on distribution as being ISIS-like. A comparison of any organization to those radicals terrorizing Iraq and Syria is not an easy claim to substantiate, and hardly appropriate. Nonetheless, Wylie’s polemic rakes Amazon through the coals and foresees an end to its digital dominance. “I believe with the restored health of the publishing industry and having some sense of where this sort of ISIS-like distribution channel, Amazon, is going to be buried and in which plot of sand they will be stuck, [publishers] will be able to raise the author’s digital royalty to 40 percent or 50 percent,” Wylie said. While the Guardian writes that “Wylie said he believed Amazon’s digital monopoly could be weakened,” Amazon isn’t truly operating as a monopoly, or a seller with ultimate market power to set prices.

Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote about Amazon’s power earlier this month. The company, Krugman says, is not so much acting as a monopolist as “it is acting as a monopsonist, a dominant buyer with the power to push prices down.” Rather than sucking as much profit as possible from consumers, Amazon keeps “prices low, to reinforce its dominance. What it has done, instead, is use its market power to put a squeeze on publishers, in effect driving down the prices it pays for books.” Amazon’s dominance lies in its ability to demand extremely low prices from publishing companies so that its own resale prices are low for online shoppers.

Around the world, too, the company is facing trouble. This year, a German union has had ongoing disputes with Amazon. This shouldn’t be taken lightly, as “Amazon employs a total of 9,000 warehouse staff at nine distribution centers in Germany, its second-biggest market behind the United States, plus 14,000 seasonal workers,” Reuters reports. The union, called Verdi, is demanding greater pay for warehouse workers while the company “regards warehouse staff as logistics workers and says they receive above-average pay by the standards of that industry.” The contention of which industry the workers even belong to is central to the disputes. “The crux of the issue is whether the workers are operating in logistics or retail capacities,” according to a CNET article covering strikes. Verdi wants its workers classified in the retail and distribution sector, in which standard labor wages would be higher.

Amazon will not be able to keep up with these publicity attacks no matter the new products it releases, especially when the products’ quality is also poor. Whether criticism is coming from the polemic—if grossly hyperbolic—Wylie, the analytic Krugman, or the tenacious Verdi, Amazon needs to respond to its critics as soon as possible. Further, it needs to change its corporate structure: there need to be fairer deals with publishers and fairer negotiations with laborers. Without these concessions, Amazon will fall by the wayside; either it will succumb to competition that treats other businesses and workers more fairly, or to government intervention that forces it to behave better.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Retail Giant Amazon in Hot Water Across the Globe appeared first on Law Street.

From the faux outrage over President Obama’s “latte salute,” to every worker’s fantasy coming true in Germany with a possible ban on after-hours work emails, to people getting arrested for buying cold meds — for an actual cold — there was a ton of interesting news last week. ICYMI, here are Law Street’s top three stories from last week.

#1 The “Latte Salute” is a Latte of Crap

Earlier this week President of the United States Barack Obama made a fatal error. He drank a cup of coffee and saluted our troops…with the same hand. This incited media coverage somewhere on par with a natural disaster, or maybe an assassination attempt. In fact, some members of the media covered what has now been dubbed the “latte salute” scandal as though it actually was an assassination — namely the assassination of American patriotism. (Read full article here.)

#2 Germany Considers Bans on After Hours Work Emails

I’m sort of a walking stereotype. I have my phone in my hand at all times, I sleep with it in my bed even though I know that’s bad, and I’m constantly checking my texts, social media, and email. And that’s never really bothered me — it seems normal to me. I am used to being accessible essentially 24/7. I think that’s a norm that a lot of us Americans have gotten used to, and I doubt that that’s going to change, but apparently some of our European friends have started rejecting the concept of 24/7 connectivity. (Read full article here.)

#3 Careful When Buying Water and Cold Meds, You Might Just Get Arrested

Every time I see a law enforcement officer in public — mall cop, fashion police, regular 5-0 — I have the irrational fear that they are out to get me. (This is especially true of the fashion police, but my fear of them might not be that irrational as anyone who has seen my clothing choices could attest.) I’m never doing anything I’m not supposed to be doing (or at the very least, I’m never doing anything I’m going to admit to you), but that doesn’t matter: I am sure I am about to be thrown in handcuffs and taken downtown. Little did I know, instead of fearing this, I should have been hoping for it. Just ask Elizabeth Daly or Mickey Lynn Goodson. (Read full article here.)

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On August 21, 2014, Pulitzer Prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the stadium for the 2022 World Cup, sued the New York Review of Books and its critic, Martin Filler, for defamation. Hadid claimed that Filler defamed her in his June 5, 2014 article, “The Insolence of Architecture,” in which he reviewed non-party Rowan Moore’s book Why We Build: Desire and Power in Architecture. Hadid asserted that Filler’s following passage defamed her:

“However, despite the numerous horror stories about this coercive exploitation, some big-name practitioners don’t seem moved by the plight of the Emirates’ imported serfs. Andrew Ross, a professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and a member of Gulf Labor, an advocacy group that is seeking to redress this region-wide injustice, earlier this year wrote a chilling New York Times Op-Ed piece. In it he quotes the Iraqi-born, London-based architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the Al Wakrah stadium in Qatar, now being built for the 2022 World Cup. She has unashamedly disavowed any responsibility, let alone concern, for the estimated one thousand laborers who have perished while constructing her project thus far. ‘I have nothing to do with the workers,’ Hadid has claimed. ‘It is not my duty as an architect to look at it.‘”

Hadid contends that Filler defamed her because workers have not begun constructing the stadium, and no workers have died. Moreover, the passage implies that she is indifferent to the workers’ deaths. Architectmagazine.com reports that Hadid’s complaint seeks “a withdrawal of the article from publication, a retraction, unspecified damages from the defendants, full payment of legal fees, and ‘any further relief as justice may require.’”

On August 25, 2014, Filler retracted his statement in a letter to the editor entitled, An Apology to Zaha Hadid, which is also added to the end of the review online. The Los Angeles Times reports that Hadid’s legal team received Filler’s retraction but has yet to respond.

Although Hadid obtained Filler’s retraction, it may be difficult for the architect to receive any other relief that she seeks in her complaint if her lawsuit reaches the trial stage. Since Hadid is a Pulitzer Prize-winning architect, she will likely be deemed a public figure, and consequently, she has to prove that Filler acted with “actual malice” when he wrote his article, which is a difficult standard to prove, as explained in this post about celebrity defamation suits.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Phil Gyford via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Review of Books Retracts Defamation Error appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a chilly November afternoon in Indiana. Simple, God-fearing folks from Fort Wayne to Evansville have gathered with friends and family to celebrate the football game happening in South Bend, just as they do every year. The game would give the winner a good shot at college football’s national championship, and give one team’s fans bragging rights throughout the country for at least a year. But this year there would be no bragging rights for either Notre Dame or USC fans because there would be no game. Hours before kickoff, Notre Dame quarterback Josef Steinbeck (a transfer from Michigan) convinced his team to strike over the team’s early curfew and average salaries. Notre Dame University, Steinbeck’s employer, was powerless because Steinbeck was protected by a big, powerful, union.

This Thayer-esque sports tragedy is exactly the type of yarn being spun by opponents of unions in college football, like United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and the Wall Street Journal. These stories have the potential to both entertain and galvanize the casual fan into opposing collective bargaining for college football players, but are they cautionary tales or tall tales?

Generally, unionized workers are permitted to strike only for economic concessions or due to an unfair labor practice (ULP) committed by their employer.  If a union strikes for an economic concession that’s plainly covered by their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (e.g. strike to compel an employer to raise minimum salaries higher than the CBA permits), a union risks committing a ULP itself, which could lead to fines, sanctions, or even decertification of the union. Unions also can’t strike unless they’ve given ten days notice to their employer, and they can’t strike at all if their CBA contains a no-strike provision. Rather than striking or hashing out issues via proletariat revolution, union complaints are usually either withdrawn or settled.

Still, work stoppages do happen (although apparently not in Canada). In sports though, it’s often not at the behest of the union.  A glimpse at work stoppages in professional sports shows that most are caused when owners refuse to permit the players to work (lockout) rather than the players refusing to play for the owners (strike). In baseball, strikes outnumber lockouts but mainly because the MLB’s perplexing antitrust-exemption prevents players from using alternate means to litigate their beef with management. In other sports, lockouts have typically arisen when CBAs between ownership and players have expired, and the two sides have not agreed upon a new contract. Since it takes two to tango, an unbiased observer would see owners just as responsible for sports stoppages as players are.

Even if the improbable did happen and unionized college players went on strike, would they deserve our resentment? The National College Players Association (NCPA) would be the presumptive union representing most college sports teams, and their demands are fairly modest requests regarding player safety, scholarship guarantees, and the ability to transfer. If a school reneged on one of these issues mid-season and still expected its football player to provide it with its multi-million dollar revenue stream, is the student the bad guy? Not in any story I’ve ever read.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Shaynedwyer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post The Fable of the College Football Strike appeared first on Law Street.