About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

94 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. [i] (2019)

handle is hein.journals/chknt94 and id is 1 raw text is: 








CHICAGO-KENT

   LAW REVIEW


VOLUME 94                           2019                          NUMBER 1



                               CONTENTS


  CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 94, ISSUE 1

                           SYMPOSIUM EDITORS
         THE MEMBERS OF THE CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW


                       THE PIPER LECTURE

THE METASTASIZATION OF MANDATORY
ARBITRATION                                    Alexander J.S. Colvin         3
         Mandatory arbitration procedures have expanded to become a common fea-
     ture of American employment relations. This article presents the results of a new
     original survey examining the extent of mandatory arbitration, where it is most
     commonly used, and which employees it is most likely to affect. Overall, 53.9 per-
     cent of private sector business establishments, representing 56.2 percent of nonun-
     ion employees, have mandatory arbitration procedures. Larger employers are
     more likely to have adopted mandatory arbitration, as are workplaces with lower
     paid employees. Mandatory arbitration is particularly common in California,
     North Carolina, and Texas, but is widespread nationwide. Class action waivers are
     included in the mandatory arbitration agreements of 41.1 percent of the employ-
     ees covered by these procedures. Some 39.5 percent of the mandatory arbitration
     procedures were adopted within the last five years, indicating that there has been
     a rapid recent growth in this practice. These findings indicate a metastasization of
     mandatory arbitration, where it has now replaced litigation as the most common
     method of enforcement of employment rights for nonunion employees, with po-
     tential major negative consequences for workers.

                           STUDENT NOTES

GOOD REASON LAWS UNDER THE GUN:
MAY-ISSUE STATES AND THE RIGHT
TO BEAR ARMS                                          Jack M. Amaro         27
         This note proposes a framework for analyzing the point at which discretion-
     ary restrictions on the concealed carry of firearms are unconstitutional under the
     Second Amendment, which, at its core, guarantees the responsible, law-abiding
     citizen at least the right to use a firearm for self-defense. Although the Supreme
     Court has yet to affirmatively answer whether and to what extent this right ex-
     tends beyond the home, every state allows its residents to publicly carry a firearm
     in some form-be it open or concealed. But states have the power to limit who
     may exercise this right; and some states curtail it to the point at which few, if any,
     individuals are granted a permit to carry a firearm. Should the Supreme Court
     face this issue, I argue that the latter approach is impermissible under the Second
     Amendment's developing jurisprudence.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most