Posted by Da’Naysia Aarons.

In an article called “Forced Arbitration,” Gordon Gibb, describes how citizens in the United States are taken advantage of by popular rich companies, such as, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, Wells Fargo and several others. Many consumers who buy products from these companies do not realize that they are facing forced arbitration.

Companies forced arbitration through a contractual clause that waives any rights to purse a dispute through courts. For example, a consumer decides to purchase a phone from T-Mobile. Before the consumer can buy the product he or she has to sign a document. In many cases, the force arbitration clause occurs in fine print at the bottom of the page, so many consumers are not aware of what they are signing. If the consumer does not sign the contract, they are not able to purchase their item. However, if the consumer signs the contract they receive their item.

If the consumer decides that he or she wants to sue the company, because something went wrong with the product, that consumer will never get their day in court because he or she signed the contract giving over that right. In the article, an appellate attorney, Deepak Gupta, states, “[Forced arbitration] is really an exit clause from the civil justice system and people aren’t aware that they’re even entering into these contracts.”

Force arbitration has become a popular issue in the United States. Several people are now starting to challenge its use. It is not right on how the government and companies are taking advantage of these consumers.

Da’Naysia is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Adam Kutarnia.

People have been betting on sports for centuries, however, the multi-billion dollar industry is illegal in almost all parts of the United States except for four states – Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana. Last summer, 29 men were arrested in New Jersey for running a sports betting ring that grossed approximately to $3 million during a 12-month period. New Jersey is one of the many states where sports gambling is illegal, but many are fighting to change the law.

While most of the world allows sports gambling, the United States has been strict about it since passing the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which prohibits sports gambling nationwide, excluding a few states. New Jersey has been pushing hard to legalize sports gambling in the last couple years, but has been unsuccessful due to four major professional sports leagues – NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL and NCAA blocking it.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christe has been a strong supporter of legalizing sports gambling in New Jersey, and even signed a law passed by the state legislatures to allow sports gambling in New Jersey’s casinos and racetracks, before the major professional leagues and NCAA blocked it. The plaintiffs argue that sports betting would harm the integrity of sports and violate federal law. As of right now, New Jersey is losing millions of dollars in potential revenue to offshore and organized crime.

New Jersey will get another shot at their case after a federal court hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals took place last month; a ruling in the case will be made on June 26.

Like the case above with the 29 men being arrested for running a sports betting ring, people want to bet on games and will do so whether it’s legal or not.

Adam is a business administration major with a concentration in finance at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

In class, we discuss the Fourth Amendment as it pertains to a variety of searches and seizures by government actors. Even though the New Jersey analog is practically identical to the federal Fourth Amendment, the New Jersey Supreme Court has interpreted more protections for privacy than the United States Supreme Court has under the federal amendment.

In a recent case, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned a prior 2009 decision requiring police officers conducting an automobile search to have probable cause and exigent circumstances, such as time constraints and safety concerns, and obtain a warrant from a judge prior to the search. The court held  officers now merely have to have probable cause to conduct the search–a retreat to the federal standard.

From time to time, courts will break with stare decisis when circumstances permit. The decision in this case, however, drew criticism from two of the Justices and the defense bar. Justice LaVecchia wrote in her dissent, “‘One can only wonder why the State and the majority of this Court find it appropriate to turn from the progressive approach historically taken in this State to privacy and constitutional rights of motorists.’”

But the court held the old standard was “unworkable.” Police were required to get a telephonic warrant in these circumstances; yet, many of them resorted to merely getting the owner of the vehicle to sign a “consent form” for the search instead of calling a judge.

Justice Barry T. Albin, writing for the majority held the standard applied in the 2009 decision “does not provide greater liberty or security to New Jersey’s citizens and has placed on law enforcement unrealistic and impracticable burdens.” The court found that the 2009 standard had the “unintended consequence” of causing an “‘exponential increase in police-induced consent automobile searches,’” suggesting officers may be pressuring drivers to volunteer for searches instead of taking the time to obtain a warrant.

“‘The heavy reliance on consent searches is of great concern given the historical abuses associated with such searches and the potential for future abuses,’” Justice Albin wrote.

Posted by Issam Abualnadi.

Tax is a sum of money levied on incomes, property, sales, etc., by a government for its support or for specific services. (The American Heritage Dictionary). According to the IRS website, the origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913; however, history, it actually goes back even further. During the Civil, War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. In 1894, however, Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.

The 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, removed this objection by allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals without regard to the population of each State. (IRS Website). The sole purpose of income tax is based economics and social goals.( Income Tax Fundamentals 1-2). While the government tries to maximize its revenue, at the same time, Congress tries to make the tax law suitable and fair for each individual. Therefore, the tax law not only divides the taxpayers into categories upon their income, but also it allows them to minimize their taxes due by structuring their tax return in different methods. Unfortunately, not every citizen is law-abiding in this respect, and accordingly, some taxpayers break the tax law. In the foregoing, I will discuss the differences between tax avoidance, tax fraud, and tax evasion.    Avoidance of tax is not a criminal offense. According to the IRS, taxpayers have the right to reduce, avoid, or minimize their taxes by legitimate means. One who avoids tax does not conceal or misrepresent, but shapes and preplans events to reduce or eliminate tax liability within the parameters of the law. Take for example, Warren Buffett. Buffett wrote in The New York Times in 2011 “ Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent” ( The New York Times). But how Buffett can do that?

Buffett and many other super rich people use different tax rules to avoid paying taxes, like the “cash-rich split-off.” This code mechanism is used when Company (A) puts cash or other “investment assets” plus a business into a subsidiary that it then swaps tax-free to Company (B) in return for B’s holding of A’s stock. In 2010 Graham Holdings and Berkshire (Warren Buffett’s corporation), saved a total of about $675 million in federal and state income taxes by going the “cash-rich split-off” route. Graham Holdings is trading cash, Berkshire stock that it owns, and a TV station for most of Berkshire’s 23 percent stake in Graham Holdings. Tax avoidance matches the well-known saying, “Work smarter not harder.” Also, it is worth mentioning that massive tax avoidance draws attention to the notion of the efficiency of the tax codes, and the need to produce new rules or restrictions prevent such legal tax evasion. (The New York Times).

Tax fraud is another way some taxpayers use to minimize their tax liability. According to the IRS website, tax fraud “is deception by misrepresentation of material facts, or silence when good faith requires expression, which results in material damage to one who relies on it and has the right to rely on it. Simply stated, it is obtaining something of value from someone else through deceit.” (IRS Section 25.1.1.2). According to IRS’s definition of tax fraud, not all the mistakes in preparing a tax return are considered a fraud, and in order to consider a case as a fraud, two elements should be presented:

1. An additional tax due and owing as the result of a deliberate intent to evade tax; or

2. The willful and material submission of false statements or false documents in connection with an application and/or return. (IRS Section 25.1.1.1). Generally the expression “Tax Fraud” used for civil and criminal cases.

The third area is tax evasion. Tax evasion, “Involves some affirmative act to evade or defeat a tax, or payment of tax. Examples of affirmative acts are deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, attempts to color or obscure events, or make things seem other than they are” (IRS Section 25.1.1.2.4). “It is typically used in the criminal context, and it is a subset of the tax fraud.”

Tax fraud and tax evasion are very close in their meaning; both are illegal way to reduce the tax liability. The IRS indicates tax fraud by two major indicators. The first indicator is when the taxpayer knowingly understates their tax liability often leaving evidence in the form of identifying earmarks. The second indicator is that serve as a sign or symptom, or signify that actions may have been done for the purpose of deceit, concealment or to make things seem other than what they are. Usually the IRS cannot prove that to court, because taxpayer can easily claim a good faith misunderstanding of the law or good faith belief that one is not violating the law negating willfulness. Therefore, the IRS chooses to prosecute the taxpayer civilly for underpaying taxes. In such cases, the IRS can impose a tax fraud penalty, which is 75% of the tax owed plus the interest on this penalty. On the other hand, tax evasion is a subset of tax fraud. In tax evasion cases, the very difficult burden for the IRS is to prove the willfulness, which means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. (IRS, Section 25.1.1.1) To prove fraud, they must show the court that the taxpayer did the act deliberately for the purpose of deceit. Examples include omissions of specific items where similar items are included; concealment of bank accounts or other assets. (ISR Section 25.1.1.3). So if the IRS can prove that, then it is a tax evasion case. In tax evasion cases, the penalty range is up to five years in jail plus a big fine and plus the costs of prosecution for each separate tax crime.

In conclusion, the tax law was created to enable the government to support the economical and social activities in the American society. The lawmaker enacted some tax codes to help eligible taxpayers reduce their tax liability under exact conditions, but some still try to deceive the government by using illegal means.

Issam is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Works Cited

“Sixteenth Amendment.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008. The Gale Group 17 Nov. 2014. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixteenth+Amendment

tax.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2003. Houghton Mifflin Company 23 Nov. 2014 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tax

“Brief History of IRS.” Brief History of IRS. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. .

Whittenburg, Gerald E., and Ray Whittington. “The Individual Income Tax Return.” Income Tax Fundamentals. 2014 ed. St. Paul: Cengage Learning, 2014. 1-2. Print.

“Internal Revenue Manual – 25.1.1 Overview/Definitions.” Internal Revenue Manual – 25.1.1 Overview/Definitions. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. .

BUFFETT, WARREN. “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.” The New York Times 14 Aug. 2011. Web.

A police officer in New Jersey is accused of witness tampering and official misconduct. The State claims the officer tried to contact a state trooper and convince him not to appear in court on DUI charges against his cousin.

The prosecutor seeks to introduce as a “prior bad act” an incident where the officer tried to intervene on a DUI charge against his uncle. The State’s key witness is a former municipal prosecutor who claims he was in a private meeting with the arresting officers when defendant tried to get his “attention” in the matter. The arresting officers indicated the arrestee was defendant’s uncle. The prosecutor allegedly exclaimed, “You should know better than this, ” and then later had the case transferred to another court. The officer’s lawyer argued to the court, “My guy said nothing. It’s unfair to conclude he was there to interject himself badly. That’s speculation.” He further argued that his client could have entered the room to talk about two other cases in which he was involved at the time. The officer was never charged with any misconduct.

That fact was argued to the the judge.  Because he was never charged, the attorney argued, to allow a jury to hear about it would be “‘very prejudicial . . . You’re asking me to try two cases in front of the jury at the same time.’”

The court questioned the prosecutor extensively as to why he was never charged, but the prosecutor contended the State could not prove the incident beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, the standard, the prosecutor argued, for prior bad acts was a “‘lower standard.’” The standard is clear and convincing evidence, and court inquired how was the evidence clear and convincing when the municipal prosecutor stated the officer did not say anything to him. The prosecutor, however, maintained that the officer made several calls to the processing room and “‘showed interest’” when his uncle was being booked. The judge indicated there was nothing in police department’s policy that prohibited an officer to inquire about the status of a family member.

The State has an uphill battle. It appears they have at least a preponderance of the evidence that the officer did anything to influence the municipal prosecutor but may fall short of the required clear and convincing evidence. Just showing up in a room without saying anything shifts the focus on the arresting officer’s statement to the municipal prosecutor that the arrestee was his uncle and the municipal prosecutor’s assumption that simply by his very presence he was there to influence him not to prosecute his uncle. This may not be enough to get over the hurdle.

New Jersey Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides, in material part, that:

evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the disposition of a person in order to show that such person acted in conformity therewith. Such evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue in dispute.

The rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).  N.J.R.E. 404(b) exists primarily “to guard a defendant’s right to a fair trial by avoiding the danger that a jury might convict the accused because the jurors perceive him to be a bad person.” New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. I.H.C., 415 N.J.Super. 551, 571 (App. Div. 2010).

The federal advisory committee notes state: “No mechanical solution is offered,” and deciding whether to admit evidence of other crimes depends on “whether the danger of undue prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence in view of the availability of other means of proof and other factors appropriate for making decisions of this kind under Rule 403.”

Under State v. Cofield, the prosecution must satisfy a four-prong test before evidence of a prior bad act can be admitted:

1. The evidence of the other crime must be admissible as relevant to a material issue;

2. It must be similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged;

3. The evidence of the other crime must be clear and convincing; and

4. The probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice.

127 N.J. 328 (1992).

In State v. Collier, the appellate division upheld the trial court’s decision to permit testimony about a prior incident involving animal cruelty in order to show the defendant had a motive to rob and shoot the victim, because the defendant knew the victim told the police that defendant was involved in the animal cruelty incident. 316 N.J.Super. 181, 196 (App. Div. 1998).  The fact that both acts were dissimilar is not dispositive as to admissibility. Id. at 194.

In the present case, the State has to show that there was some motive by the defendant to contact the state trooper to stop him from testifying based on his prior act of entering a room when his uncle’s DUI was being discussed by the arresting officers and the municipal prosecutor. That appears to show more a pattern of behavior than motive as required by the rule. And whether or not it amounts to clear and convincing evidence of motive remains to be seen.

Posted by Serkan Saka.

Have you ever thought how important it is for universities to receive government research support? As we know that reputation is also very important for all the universities. Columbia University one of the best universities in the world and a top university for medical research. Recently, however, Columbia requested research funds from National Institutes of Health (NIH) for medical research but was caught in related fraudulent activity.

According to Danielle Douglas-Gabriel’s article in The Washington Post, Columbia’s research costs were lower than what they actually received from NIH. One of the reasons is that Columbia University conducted their research off campus, but misinformed NIH that the research would be conducted on campus, which would make the research more expensive. After government investigation, Columbia University will pay $9.5 million to NIH to cover false charges (Douglas- Gabriel, 2016).

The school officially released a statement by Caroline Adelman, a spokeswoman says, “The government disagreed with the university’s approach and took the position that a lower indirect cost rate was appropriate.”(Douglas-Gabriel, 2016). On the other side the NIH’s statement says “ Money gained by such behavior deprives other research programs of funds that could yield life-altering new treatments”(Douglas-Gabriel, 2016). It is very important to inform correctly in any case. It is not important if you are a big institution or small business, as either could be involved in white-collar crime.

Serkan is a MS accounting student in Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Source:
Douglas-Gabriel, Danielle. (2016, July 14). [Columbia University to pay $9.5 million to Settle Fraud Charges]. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/07/14/columbia- university-to-pay-9-5-million-to-settle-fraud-charges/?utm_term=.f974cc316f05

Research project posted by Rafael Gabrieli.

Eminent Domain

Part I:

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state or national government. There would be just compensation for the private property seized, however, many problems arise from this act. The way that eminent domain works is that it is backed by the Fifth Amendment to the US.  Constitution, which is that your state government has power over all property in the State, even private land. The land can be taken without the consent of the owner, as long as he or she is justly compensated. The purposes for which eminent domain vary, however, it has to be used for a public good somehow. This means that roads, courthouses, schools, or any other infrastructure that can benefit the public will come into place of the land that the government took using eminent domain. The state government or national government is able to use eminent domain for large-scale public works operations or even growing freeway systems.

Part II:

Pros:

In Houston, Texas, land was obtained by the use of eminent domain in order to create the Minute Maid Park baseball stadium, which has benefitted the surrounding community immensely. The baseball stadium brings millions of people each year to downtown Houston. What is amazing to see is to compare it with the Houston community before the stadium was built, which was very barren and unsocial.

The I-85 widening project in Concord, North Carolina will reshape the way inhabitants travel around Concord. The inhabitants are being justly compensated, and some are even getting 5%-10% more than the initial appraisal value. This new freeway widening will allow traffic to be lessened during rush hours, which posed a big problem for the city during the past couple of years. It is a necessary and responsible use of eminent domain.

Cons:

Private property could have sentimental value, like a house that has been in the family for generations. This is the case with the Keeler family from Claverack, New York, who lived in their house for four generations and were being forced out due to the state’s plan to expand power lines. Another problem with eminent domain is that the price that the owner feels he deserves is more than what is being offered to him. This happened to Rich Quam, owner of a house in Fargo, North Dakota since 1997. The town stated that his backyard could become structurally unstable, so the city offered him an amount to buy the property from him. Rich Quam declared it an insult however, because the amount did not reflect the years of hard work he put into renovating the house, adding a second level and a garage. A third problem is the simple desire to not want to abandon a profitable business, which almost occurred a couple years back to Perry Beaton, property co-owner of a Burger King that the city of North Kansas City was attempting to seize from him.

Part III:

In Economic Justice for All, it is stated that the common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy, which is essentially the basis for eminent domain. Catholic support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth, rather, it states that “no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.” Thus being the Catholic Social Teaching stance on Eminent Domain: if it is for the public good, an individual should be more than willing to give up his property that is not essential to his well-being in order to further the development of society and his surroundings.

Works Cited

Clayton, Adam. “Family Rallies to save Farmland from Eminent Domain.” Columbia-Greene Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“Economic Justice for All.” Wall Common Good Selected Texts. N.p., n.d. Book. 10 Mar. 2016.

Lewis, David. “Eminent Domain: Still A Useful Tool Despite Its Recent Thrashing.” Planetizen. Planetizen, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Messina, Ignazio. “City Threatens Eminent Domain.” Toledo Blade. N.p., 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Reaves, Tim. “Making Way for the Freeway: Eminent Domain Claims Homes.” Independent Tribune. Independent Tribune, 7 June 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Ross, John. “Hands Off! North Kansas City Loses Eminent Domain Case « Watchdog.org.” Watchdogorg RSS. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Posted by Jen Suarez.

To what extent is defamation? From my last blog article, I defined defamation as “malicious and damaging misrepresentation,” where an organization was falsely accused of rape. However, can anyone play to the “defamation card” if they don’t like what other’s have to say? For example, Yelp.com is a website where consumers can post and rate the quality of businesses anonymously. The Rhodes Group, which is a Collin County Texas real estate firm, received a poor review on the Yelp website and is now suing on the grounds of defamation; they are requesting the name of the customer, whose username is “Lin L.” The Rhodes Group does not even believe that “Lin L.” is a real person. In fact, they openly suggest that this username belongs to someone from a competing organization, trying to ruin The Rhodes Group’s reputation. The Rhodes Group, however, is fighting in court against Public Citizen, which claims that revealing the user’s identity violates the user’s right to privacy. Though the negative Yelp review has been removed, there is no confirmation its removal was due to the impending lawsuit.

The Public Citizen lawyer, representing Yelp, stated that there is no justification for revealing the user’s identity, especially since The Rhodes Group did not file any complaint until well over a year after the review had been posted. According to its website, “Public Citizen maintains that the Rhodes Group’s claim violates the one-year statute of limitation for libel suits and, additionally, that the subpoena was issued in the wrong state and therefore cannot be enforced by the Texas court.” The Rhodes Group is fighting back stating, “You can’t use the First Amendment as a shield to make false and defamatory statements about an individual, particularly in a commercial arena.”

The Rhodes Group is absolutely right that Yelp cannot hide behind the “First Amendment Shield,” however, Yelp and Public Citizen are correct that the user’s identity should remain anonymous and there is no justification to reveal it. Bad, anonymous reviews, whether they are fake or genuine, are part of the online world. Millions of users have the ability to hide behind a keyboard and this allows us to bestow harsher criticism without fear of consequences. Freedom of speech does not include libel. Therefore, the result of this court case could determine how “free” freedom of speech actually is on the World Wide Web.

Jen is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Research project posted by Rafael Gabrieli.

Eminent Domain

Part I:

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state or national government. There would be just compensation for the private property seized, however, many problems arise from this act. The way that eminent domain works is that it is backed by the Fifth Amendment to the US.  Constitution, which is that your state government has power over all property in the State, even private land. The land can be taken without the consent of the owner, as long as he or she is justly compensated. The purposes for which eminent domain vary, however, it has to be used for a public good somehow. This means that roads, courthouses, schools, or any other infrastructure that can benefit the public will come into place of the land that the government took using eminent domain. The state government or national government is able to use eminent domain for large-scale public works operations or even growing freeway systems.

Part II:

Pros:

In Houston, Texas, land was obtained by the use of eminent domain in order to create the Minute Maid Park baseball stadium, which has benefitted the surrounding community immensely. The baseball stadium brings millions of people each year to downtown Houston. What is amazing to see is to compare it with the Houston community before the stadium was built, which was very barren and unsocial.

The I-85 widening project in Concord, North Carolina will reshape the way inhabitants travel around Concord. The inhabitants are being justly compensated, and some are even getting 5%-10% more than the initial appraisal value. This new freeway widening will allow traffic to be lessened during rush hours, which posed a big problem for the city during the past couple of years. It is a necessary and responsible use of eminent domain.

Cons:

Private property could have sentimental value, like a house that has been in the family for generations. This is the case with the Keeler family from Claverack, New York, who lived in their house for four generations and were being forced out due to the state’s plan to expand power lines. Another problem with eminent domain is that the price that the owner feels he deserves is more than what is being offered to him. This happened to Rich Quam, owner of a house in Fargo, North Dakota since 1997. The town stated that his backyard could become structurally unstable, so the city offered him an amount to buy the property from him. Rich Quam declared it an insult however, because the amount did not reflect the years of hard work he put into renovating the house, adding a second level and a garage. A third problem is the simple desire to not want to abandon a profitable business, which almost occurred a couple years back to Perry Beaton, property co-owner of a Burger King that the city of North Kansas City was attempting to seize from him.

Part III:

In Economic Justice for All, it is stated that the common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy, which is essentially the basis for eminent domain. Catholic support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth, rather, it states that “no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.” Thus being the Catholic Social Teaching stance on Eminent Domain: if it is for the public good, an individual should be more than willing to give up his property that is not essential to his well-being in order to further the development of society and his surroundings.

Works Cited

Clayton, Adam. “Family Rallies to save Farmland from Eminent Domain.” Columbia-Greene Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“Economic Justice for All.” Wall Common Good Selected Texts. N.p., n.d. Book. 10 Mar. 2016.

Lewis, David. “Eminent Domain: Still A Useful Tool Despite Its Recent Thrashing.” Planetizen. Planetizen, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Messina, Ignazio. “City Threatens Eminent Domain.” Toledo Blade. N.p., 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Reaves, Tim. “Making Way for the Freeway: Eminent Domain Claims Homes.” Independent Tribune. Independent Tribune, 7 June 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Ross, John. “Hands Off! North Kansas City Loses Eminent Domain Case « Watchdog.org.” Watchdogorg RSS. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Friday morning, two days after the judge presiding the Uber class action lawsuit decided that drivers attempting to arbitrate can be included in the law suit, Uber sent drivers a new agreement. The document undermined the judge’s ruling by revising the arbitration clause.

Liss-Riordan and her team are filing an emergency motion that will be heard in front of Judge Edward Chen next Thursday; it asks the court to block Uber from enforcing this new driver agreement. “Uber has tried to fix the problem that Judge Chen ruled made the agreement unenforceable,” Liss Riordan told TechCrunch in an email.. The Private Attorney General Act gives “a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. It also allows that private citizen to “seek civil penalties not only for violations that he personally suffered” but also for violations of “other current or former employees.”

According to Chen’s Wednesday ruling, the Uber driver agreement of 2014 and 2015 illegally waived drivers’ rights under PAGA, which informed Judge Chen’s decision that the arbitration clause could not be honored because it contained an illegal provision. This was the reason for the provision of the agreement, to quickly remove the illegality and include new provisions to the agreement.

The Private Attorney General Act protects uber drivers from what uber has tried to prevent, a large action against the company. Uber has agreed to resolve any claim against the company but only on an individual basis. Uber’s driver agreement provision also attempts to prevent workers from participating in any class collective or representative action against the company. Uber also rewrote the agreement to remove a requirement that arbitration between a driver and the company remain confidential. The language makes it clear that the agreement goes into effect only when a driver accepts it  not when a revision is published, therefore, protecting drivers who previously signed the agreement.

Stephen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.