Higher Ed Law Prof Blog

Events: A summer academy on cultivating student success

JOIN US IN BIRMINGHAM!
2008 SUMMER ACADEMY: CULTIVATING STUDENT ACCESS & SUCCESS
"Strengthening Institutions to Improve National Competitiveness"
Renaissance Ross Bridge Golf Resort & Spa
July 20-24, 2008

Join us in historic Birmingham, Ala., nestled in the rolling foothills of the Appalachian Mountains for the 2008 Summer Academy! This unique event brings together teams from colleges and universities in a collaborative and dynamic setting. With the aid of expert consultants and a rich array of working sessions, teams create action plans to increase access and success for students of color and other historically underserved populations in higher education. The Summer Academy allows participating teams to create positive change throughout an institution's campus while contributing to national higher education best practices for student success.

The following are some of the Summer Academy's most beneficial features:

Strategic conversations and action planning
Institutional and cross-institutional teamwork
Tailored workshops and plena

Law: Request from a reader regarding Hiwassee College

Dear Jim,

I am a retired professor (Georgia St. Univ. in Atlanta) who is now the President-Elect of the Alumni Association Board of Governors at Hiwassee College in Madisonville, TN. Thus, I read with interest your recent Greentree Gazette article pertaining to Hiwassee College vs. SACS. As you will recall, the court ruled in favor of SACS almost three weeks ago.

My understanding is that the administrative officials of Hiwassee College plan to pursue accreditation by another agency, most likely TRACS (Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools). What are the implications of accreditation by TRACS rather than SACS? I must say that I had never heard of TRACS prior to the unfavorable SACS ruling with regard to Hiwassee's accreditation. Also, what might we expect with regard to fall enrollments at Hiwassee?

Even though my three degrees are from The University of Tennessee at Knoxville, my heart is with Hiwassee College. Like many small two-year schools, its alumni have many wonderful memories of the place where they began their post-secondary education.

Thank you very much for any information and opinions you have time to provide.

Ben Layne

Here's the e-zine article to which he refers:

Hiwassee may go out with a squeak instead of a roar

Jim Castagnera

April 2008

A year ago, in a magazine article titled “Mice That Roar,” I reported, “If the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) gets its way, Hiwassee College has no future.” SACS was intent on yanking the rural, religious college’s accreditation.

Jim Castagnera

On April 14th the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over much of America’s southland, moved the accrediting organization one very big step closer to having its way with the 500-student, sectarian school.
The three-judge appeals panel made short shrift of Hiwassee’s legal arguments, and affirmed summary judgment in SACS’s favor. In a two-page opinion, the justices first disposed of Hiwassee's claim of a private right of action against the accreditor. Relying on its own 2002 precedent, the court held that no such private right exists in the Higher Education Act. (The Supreme Court has long held that students and parents have no such cause of action against their colleges and universities under the HEA.)

Hiwassee also argued that SACS is so entwined with the U.S. Department of Education that it is, in effect, a government actor. If so, said the college’s advocates, the “due process” clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment applies and has been violated by the accreditor’s rough treatment of this mouse of a college. Not so, said the appellate court: “The overwhelming majority of courts who have considered this issue have found that accrediting agencies are not state actors.”

Lastly, in a final snap of the mousetrap that may break the plaintiff-college’s back, the court concluded that, “SACS complied [with any common law duty it may have] in terminating Hiwassee’s accreditation.”

With that opinion, the appellate judges dissolved the emergency legal stay, which, since last year, has prevented SACS from stripping Hiwassee’s accreditation.

Jim Castagnera is a Philadelphia lawyer and writer, who is the associate provost and associate counsel at Rider University.
From the Greentree Gazette.

Law: Paid Family Leave comes to New Jersey

An advisory from New Jersey defense attorney Steve Gerber:

Dear clients and colleagues:

On May 2, 2008, Governor Jon Corzine signed the Paid Family Leave Act, (the "PFLA"), making New Jersey the third state that provides workers with paid family leave benefits. The PFLA extends temporary disability insurance or TDI to provide paid family leave benefits of up to six weeks during any twelve month period for employees caring for sick family members, newborn and newly adopted children. Benefits under this new law will be substantially the same as employees on temporary disability leave for their own disabilities. The employee is entitled to collect two-thirds of their weekly salary up to $524, beginning after a one-week waiting period. The TDI benefit under the PFLA will be funded partially through employee contributions of approximately $33 per year, along with mandatory employer contributions. The PFLA provides that employee contributions will begin on January 1, 2009, and the payment of benefits will begin on July 1, 2009.

Employees must give notice to their employer of their intention to take paid leave under the Act. However, the amount of notice depends upon the reason for the leave.

Moreover, the PFLA does not on its own, grant employees any entitlement to job reinstatement. However, for employers with fifty or more employees, the paid leave under the PFLA runs concurrent with the FMLA, which does.

Opinion: When they say it's not about oil, is it most certainly about oil?

'91 war, not Iraq war, was over oil, McCain clarifies

Mary Altaffer / Associated Press
MOTIVATION: McCain talks to his press secretary. He’d said his energy policy would cut U.S. reliance on Mideast oil and prevent the U.S. from again having to send troops to the region.
He had said that his energy policy would eliminate U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and prevent the need to again send troops to the region.
From Associated Press
May 3, 2008

PHOENIX -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) clarified his comments Friday after suggesting the Iraq war was motivated by U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

His explanation: He was talking about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, not the current conflict.Read the whole story in the LA Times.

Ethanol defended by President Bush
The corn-based biofuel isn't the main reason for high food prices, he says, and 'it makes sense for America to be growing energy.'
By James Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 3, 2008
MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO. -- President Bush on Friday defended his emphasis on ethanol to help the nation meet its energy needs even though increased production of the corn-based biofuel has been blamed for contributing to sharp increases in food prices.

"As you know, I'm a ethanol person," he said, explaining his belief that it can help reduce U.S. dependence on oil. "It makes sense for America to be growing energy."

The president made his comments during a 20-minute speech and a rare, lengthy question-and-answer session with employees of a high-tech manufacturer.

On the day the government announced the loss of 20,000 payroll jobs in April, Bush said he recognized the nation was in a difficult period, "but this economy is going to come on."Also from the LA Times.

And, herewith, a look back to the oil industry's beginnings:

“There Will Be Blood” Resonates with 21st Century Vibes
by James Castagnera
The critics are raving about the performance turned in by Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview, the oil tycoon in “There Will Be Blood.” They are making it sound like he’s already got the Oscar in his pocket. I don’t know about that, but Day-Lewis’s Plainview is the best depiction of an early-20th century Robber Baron since Orson Wells gave the world “Citizen Kane” a half-century ago.
“Blood” is based loosely on a novel by Upton Sinclair, the muckraking journalist, who also took Americans into the slaughterhouses, mines and mills of the nation with powerful portraits of corruption, exploitation and danger. Sinclair lived from 1878 to 1968. A socialist, his causes included proclaiming the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Italian anarchists executed during the 1920s for a robbery and murder thousands thought they’d never committed.
His 1927 novel “Oil” was inspired by real events. During Warren G. Harding’s administration, Mammoth Oil (later Sinclair Oil) won the drilling rights to a Wyoming oil field under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Harry Sinclair grabbed the lease without the inconvenience of competitive bidding. The Teapot Dome Scandal, named for a distinctive rock that marked the site, marred Harding’s presidency.
Although the 21st Century has been proclaimed the “Information Age” and Bill Gates is the John D. Rockefeller of our era --- Gates’ Microsoft being a goliath comparable to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil a century earlier --- petroleum has lost none of its earlier importance to us. If the Internet is America’s nervous system, oil is still the nation’s lifeblood. To maintain a steady transfusion of oil, real blood still needs shedding. This was well dramatized in another recent film, “Syriana” (2005).
Many, including me, believe that oil is the real reason we’ve been in Iraq these past five years and are likely to remain there indefinitely. The evidence may be circumstantial, but it’s also pretty compelling. Begin with the fact that Presidents Bush the Elder and the Younger are Texas oilmen. Add the absence of any definitive proof to this day that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or maintained ties to Al Qaeda. Third, consider the geopolitical situation. America needs Mid-Eastern oil. Saudi Arabia has most of it. Allegedly our allies, the Saudis are fickle at best and their kingdom is a political house of cards that could implode, leaving Uncle Sam out in the cold. Since the ousting of the Shah, Iran has been openly hostile. Iraq appeared to be easy pickings in 2003… a potential client state from which the U.S. could project power at the local level into the entire Middle East.
Bush and company made major miscalculations. The rest, as they say, is history: thousands of American lives and many billions of dollars burned up in the continuing conflagration that followed the easy invasion victory. Despite the daunting costs (or perhaps also because of them), I predict an indefinite American military presence in Iraq, regardless of who is elected president in November.
Meanwhile, we have “There Will Be Blood” to drive home the point that the oil business was a hardball undertaking a century ago, just as it remains today. Thanks to Upton Sinclair and Daniel Day-Lewis, we are reminded that the bill being paid every day in Iraq is a bill we’ve been willing to pay since Rockefeller, Ford, and their fellow tycoons launched the Oil Age 100 years ago. We may surf the information highway, but we also drive our real highways and byways in SUVS that demand gasoline. America’s war machine runs mostly on diesel and gasoline fuels. We heat our homes with gas and oil. Plastics, fertilizers and many more products are petroleum based.
If you haven’t already, go and see “There Will Be Blood.” Then, the next time you turn the key in your car or the thermostat in your home, think of Daniel Plainview and thank his real-life models, from Rockefeller to the Bushes, for the black gold that makes those gadgets work.
[Jim Castagnera, formerly of Jim Thorpe, is the Associate Provost/Associate Counsel at Rider University. A collection of his “Attorney at Large” columns is now available at www.lulu.co.]

Law: Suspicionless Search - US v. Arnold (9th Cir., April 2008)

O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
*1 We must decide whether customs officers at Los Angeles International Airport may examine the electronic contents of a passenger's laptop computer without reasonable suspicion.

I
On July 17, 2005, forty-three-year-old Michael Arnold arrived at Los Angeles International Airport (“LAX”) after a nearly twenty-hour flight from the Philippines. After retrieving his luggage from the baggage claim, Arnold proceeded to customs. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) Officer Laura Peng first saw Arnold while he was in line waiting to go through the checkpoint and selected him for secondary questioning. She asked Arnold where he had traveled, the purpose of his travel, and the length of his trip. Arnold stated that he had been on vacation for three weeks visiting friends in the Philippines.

Peng then inspected Arnold's luggage, which contained his laptop computer, a separate hard drive, a computer memory stick (also called a flash drive or USB drive), and six compact discs. Peng instructed Arnold to turn on the computer so she could see if it was functioning. While the computer was booting up, Peng turned it over to her colleague, CBP Officer John Roberts, and continued to inspect Arnold's luggage.

When the computer had booted up, its desktop displayed numerous icons and folders. Two folders were entitled “Kodak Pictures” and one was entitled “Kodak Memories.” Peng and Roberts clicked on the Kodak folders, opened the files, and viewed the photos on Arnold's computer including one that depicted two nude women. Roberts called in supervisors, who in turn called in special agents with the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The ICE agents questioned Arnold about the contents of his computer and detained him for several hours. They examined the computer equipment and found numerous images depicting what they believed to be child pornography. The officers seized the computer and storage devices but released Arnold. Two weeks later, federal agents obtained a warrant.

A grand jury charged Arnold with: (1) “knowingly transport[ing] child pornography, as defined in[18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A) ], in interstate and foreign commerce, by any means, including by computer, knowing that the images were child pornography”; (2) “knowingly possess[ing] a computer hard drive and compact discs which both contained more than one image of child pornography, as defined in [18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A) ], that had been shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, knowing that the images were child pornography”; and (3) “knowingly and intentionally travel[ing] in foreign commerce and attempt[ing] to engage in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in [18 U.S.C. § 2423(f) ], in a foreign place, namely, the Philippines, with a person under 18 years of age, in violation of [18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) ].”

Arnold filed a motion to suppress arguing that the government conducted the search without reasonable suspicion. The government countered that: (1) reasonable suspicion was not required under the Fourth Amendment because of the border-search doctrine; and (2) if reasonable suspicion were necessary, that it was present in this case.

*2 The district court granted Arnold's motion to suppress finding that: (1) reasonable suspicion was indeed necessary to search the laptop; and (2) the government had failed to meet the burden of showing that the CBP officers had reasonable suspicion to search.

The government timely appealed the district court's order granting the motion to suppress.

II
Arnold argues that the district court was correct in concluding that reasonable suspicion was required to search his laptop at the border because it is distinguishable from other containers of documents based on its ability to store greater amounts of information and its unique role in modern life.

Arnold argues that “laptop computers are fundamentally different from traditional closed containers,” and analogizes them to “homes” and the “human mind.” Arnold's analogy of a laptop to a home is based on his conclusion that a laptop's capacity allows for the storage of personal documents in an amount equivalent to that stored in one's home. He argues that a laptop is like the “human mind” because of its ability to record ideas, e-mail, internet chats and web-surfing habits.

Lastly, Arnold argues that application of First Amendment principles requires us to rule contrary to the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501, 506-08 (4th Cir.2005) (rejecting the argument based on the First Amendment that a higher level of suspicion is needed for searches of “expressive material”), and to promulgate a reasonable suspicion requirement for border searches where the risk is high that expressive material will be exposed.

III

A
[1] The Fourth Amendment states that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Searches of international passengers at American airports are considered border searches because they occur at the “functional equivalent of a border.” Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (“For ... example, a search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a non-stop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search.”). “It is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity.” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 153, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004). Generally, “searches made at the border ... are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border....” United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977).

The Supreme Court has stated that:

The authority of the United States to search the baggage of arriving international travelers is based on its inherent sovereign authority to protect its territorial integrity. By reason of that authority, it is entitled to require that whoever seeks entry must establish the right to enter and to bring into the country whatever he may carry.

*3 Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 472-73, 99 S.Ct. 2425, 61 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979). In other words, the “Government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border.” Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 152, 124 S.Ct. 1582. Therefore, “[t]he luggage carried by a traveler entering the country may be searched at random by a customs officer ... no matter how great the traveler's desire to conceal the contents may be.” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 823, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). Furthermore, “a traveler who carries a toothbrush and a few articles of clothing in a paper bag or knotted scarf [may] claim an equal right to conceal his possessions from official inspection as the sophisticated executive with the locked attaché case.” Id. at 822, 102 S.Ct. 2157.

B
Courts have long held that searches of closed containers and their contents can be conducted at the border without particularized suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. Searches of the following specific items have been upheld without particularized suspicion: (1) the contents of a traveler's briefcase and luggage, United States v. Tsai, 282 F.3d 690, 696 (9th Cir.2002); (2) a traveler's “purse, wallet, or pockets,” Henderson v. United States, 390 F.2d 805, 808 (9th Cir.1967); (3) papers found in containers such as pockets, see United States v. Grayson, 597 F.2d 1225, 1228-29 (9th Cir.1979) (allowing search without particularized suspicion of papers found in a shirt pocket); and (4) pictures, films and other graphic materials. See United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 376, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971); see also 12,200-Ft. Reels of Super 8MM. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 124-25, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973) (“Import restrictions and searches of persons or packages at the national borders rest on different considerations and different rules of constitutional law from domestic regulations.”).

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has drawn some limits on the border search power. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that reasonable suspicion is required to search a traveler's “alimentary canal,” United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 541, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985), because “ ‘[t]he interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid any such intrusion [beyond the body's surface] on the mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained.’ ” Id. at 540 n. 3, 105 S.Ct. 3304 (quoting Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 769, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)). However, it has expressly declined to decide “what level of suspicion, if any, is required for non-routine border searches such as strip, body cavity, or involuntary x-ray searches.” Id. at 541 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 3304 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has rejected creating a balancing test based on a “routine” and “non-routine” search framework, and has treated the terms as purely descriptive. See United States v. Cortez-Rocha, 394 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir.2005).

Other than when “intrusive searches of the person ” are at issue, Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 152, 124 S.Ct. 1582 (emphasis added), the Supreme Court has held open the possibility, “that some searches of property are so destructive as to require” particularized suspicion. Id. at 155-56, 124 S.Ct. 1582 (emphasis added) (holding that complete disassembly and reassembly of a car gas tank did not require particularized suspicion). Indeed, the Supreme Court has left open the question of “ ‘whether, and under what circumstances, a border search might be deemed ‘unreasonable’ because of the particularly offensive manner in which it is carried out.' ” Id. at 155 n. 2, 124 S.Ct. 1582 (quoting Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 618 n. 13, 97 S.Ct. 1972).

C
*4 In any event, the district court's holding that particularized suspicion is required to search a laptop, based on cases involving the search of the person, was erroneous. Its reliance on such cases as United States v. Vance, 62 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that “[a]s the search becomes more intrusive, more suspicion is needed” in the context of a search of the human body), to support its use of a sliding intrusiveness scale to determine when reasonable suspicion is needed to search property at the border is misplaced. United States v. Arnold, 454 F.Supp.2d 999, 1002-04 (C.D.Cal.2006).

The Supreme Court has stated that “[c]omplex balancing tests to determine what is a ‘routine’ search of a vehicle, as opposed to a more ‘intrusive’ search of a person, have no place in border searches of vehicles.” Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 152, 124 S.Ct. 1582. Arnold argues that the district court was correct to apply an intrusiveness analysis to a laptop search despite the Supreme Court's holding in Flores-Montano, by distinguishing between one's privacy interest in a vehicle compared to a laptop. However, this attempt to distinguish Flores-Montano is off the mark. The Supreme Court's analysis determining what protection to give a vehicle was not based on the unique characteristics of vehicles with respect to other property, but was based on the fact that a vehicle, as a piece of property, simply does not implicate the same “dignity and privacy” concerns as “highly intrusive searches of the person.” Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 152, 124 S.Ct. 1582.

Furthermore, we have expressly repudiated this type of “least restrictive means test” in the border search context. See Cortez-Rocha, 394 F.3d at 1123 (refusing to fashion a “least restrictive means test for border control vehicular searches, and ... refus[ing] to tie the hands of border control inspectors in such a fashion”). Moreover, in both United States v. Chaudhry, 424 F.3d 1051, 1054 (9th Cir.2005) (finding the distinction between “routine” and “non-routine” inapplicable to searches of property) and Cortez-Rocha, 394 F.3d at 1122-23, we have recognized that Flores-Montano rejected our prior approach of using an intrusiveness analysis to determine the reasonableness of property searches at the international border.

[2] Therefore, we are satisfied that reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border.FN1

IV
While the Supreme Court left open the possibility of requiring reasonable suspicion for certain border searches of property in Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 155-56, 124 S.Ct. 1582, the district court did not base its holding on the two narrow grounds left open by the Supreme Court in that case.

[3] [4] Arnold has never claimed that the government's search of his laptop damaged it in any way; therefore, we need not consider whether “exceptional damage to property” applies. Arnold does raise the “particularly offensive manner” exception to the government's broad border search powers. FN2 But, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the manner in which the CBP officers conducted the search was “particularly offensive” in comparison with other lawful border searches. According to Arnold, the CBP officers simply “had me boot [the laptop] up, and looked at what I had inside....”

*5 Whatever “particularly offensive manner” might mean, this search certainly does not meet that test. Arnold has failed to distinguish how the search of his laptop and its electronic contents is logically any different from the suspicionless border searches of travelers' luggage that the Supreme Court and we have allowed. See Ross, 456 U.S. at 823, 102 S.Ct. 2157; see also Vance, 62 F.3d at 1156 (“In a border search, a person is subject to search of luggage, contents of pockets and purse without any suspicion at all.”).

With respect to these searches, the Supreme Court has refused to draw distinctions between containers of information and contraband with respect to their quality or nature for purposes of determining the appropriate level of Fourth Amendment protection. Arnold's analogy to a search of a home based on a laptop's storage capacity is without merit. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected applying the Fourth Amendment protections afforded to homes to property which is “ capable of functioning as a home ” simply due to its size, or, distinguishing between “worthy and ‘unworthy’ containers.” California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393-94, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985).

In Carney, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a mobile home should be suppressed because it was “ capable of functioning as a home.” Id. at 387-88, 393-94, 105 S.Ct. 2066. The Supreme Court refused to treat a mobile home differently from other vehicles just because it could be used as a home. Id. at 394-95, 105 S.Ct. 2066. The two main reasons that the Court gave in support of its holding, were: (1) that a mobile home is “readily movable,” and (2) that “the expectation [of privacy] with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office.” Id. at 391, 105 S.Ct. 2066 (quotation marks omitted).

Here, beyond the simple fact that one cannot live in a laptop, Carney militates against the proposition that a laptop is a home. First, as Arnold himself admits, a laptop goes with the person, and, therefore is “readily mobile.” Carney, 471 U.S. at 391, 105 S.Ct. 2066. Second, one's “expectation of privacy [at the border] ... is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office.” Id.

Moreover, case law does not support a finding that a search which occurs in an otherwise ordinary manner, is “particularly offensive” simply due to the storage capacity of the object being searched. See California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 576, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) (refusing to find that “looking inside a closed container” when already properly searching a car was unreasonable when the Court had previously found “destroying the interior of an automobile” to be reasonable in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925)).

Because there is no basis in the record to support the contention that the manner in which the search occurred was “particularly offensive” in light of other searches allowed by the Supreme Court and our precedents, the district court's judgment cannot be sustained.

V
*6 Finally, despite Arnold's arguments to the contrary we are unpersuaded that we should create a split with the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ickes. In that case, the defendant was stopped by Customs agents as he attempted to drive his van from Canada into the United States. 393 F.3d at 502. Upon a “cursory search” of defendant's van, the inspecting agent discovered a video camera containing a tape of a tennis match which “focused excessively on a young ball boy.” Id. This prompted a more thorough examination of the vehicle, which uncovered several photograph albums depicting provocatively-posed prepubescent boys, most nude or semi-nude. Id. at 503.

The Fourth Circuit held that the warrantless search of defendant's van was permissible under the border search doctrine. The court refused to carve out a First Amendment exception to that doctrine because such a rule would: (1) protect terrorist communications “which are inherently ‘expressive’ ”; (2) create an unworkable standard for government agents who “would have to decide-on their feet-which expressive material is covered by the First Amendment”; and (3) contravene the weight of Supreme Court precedent refusing to subject government action to greater scrutiny with respect to the Fourth Amendment when an alleged First Amendment interest is also at stake. See id. at 506-08 (citing New York v. P.J. Video, 475 U.S. 868, 874, 106 S.Ct. 1610, 89 L.Ed.2d 871 (1986) (refusing to require a higher standard of probable cause for warrant applications when expressive material is involved)).

We are persuaded by the analysis of our sister circuit and will follow the reasoning of Ickes in this case.

VI
For the foregoing reasons, the district court's decision to grant Arnold's motion to suppress must be

REVERSED.

FN* The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
FN1. We recently issued an opinion on a separate issue of whether reasonable suspicion is required to search incoming international correspondence; however, this opinion has since been withdrawn and the case has been reheard by an en banc panel of this court that has yet to issue a decision. United States v. Seljan, 497 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.2007), withdrawn by 512 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir.2008) (ordering rehearing en banc).
FN2. Notwithstanding the government's objection, we can decide this issue because the “particularly offensive manner” exception can be found in Flores-Montano, which was presented to the district court by the parties, and “the matter [of what the Fourth Amendment requires] was fairly before the [district court]” and, in any event, it is a question of law. See Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460, 469-70, 120 S.Ct. 1579, 146 L.Ed.2d 530 (2000); see also Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir.2004) (“Once a federal claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of that claim; parties are not limited to the precise argument they made below.... Where ... the question presented is one of law, we consider it in light of all relevant authority, regardless of whether such authority was properly presented in the district court.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)).
C.A.9 (Cal.),2008.
U.S. v. Arnold
--- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 1776525 (C.A.9 (Cal.)), 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4533

Law: Traveling this summer? Avoid a "Suspicionless Search"

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in the caseU.S. v. Arnold holding that the Fourth Amendment does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching laptops at the border, including international airports. Meanwhile, a number of national newspapers have documented unnerving reports from travelers whose electronic devices have been seized as they crossed U.S. borders.

Troublingly, you may be at risk even if you don't travel -- businesses and organizations that you interact with may do business in other countries. A suspicionless laptop search at the border could expose your information to the government To make matters worse, it's not clear how or when the government might copy and store travelers' data, share it with others, or use it in the future.

Despite simple requests for more information by individuals and government watchdogs, the agency responsible for searches at the border has failed to respond effectively. The Fourth Amendment protects us all against unreasonable government intrusions. But this guarantee means nothing if Customs and Border Patrol can arbitrarily search and seize our digital information at the border and indefinitely store and reuse it.

If your legislators are members of the appropriate congressional committees listed below, take action! Call or email and let them know that our electronic privacy needs to be protected!
More information here from the Electronic Freedom Foundation.

Law: NACUBO opposes IRS withholding rule

On behalf of the National Association of College and University Business Officers
(NACUBO), and the associations listed below, we submit the following comments on
Notice 2008-38. The notice addresses implementation of a requirement, added by section
511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA), for
governmental entities, including public colleges and universities, to withhold 3% on
payments for goods and services, beginning in 2011.

We understand that the Service’s interest is limited to comments on how to implement
section 511, and this letter will respond to the questions set forth in Notice 2008-38. 
However, we strongly believe it is important to express our grave concerns with the
underlying statutory provision.Download irscomments.pdf

Law: Not the best means of working your way through school

A Penn State Altoona business student was earning his way through college by selling cocaine, according to police charges filed Thursday.

The charges against Michael A. Conforti, 20, of Hackettstown, N.J., came in the aftermath of an April 21 sweep by the Blair County Drug Task Force and Logan Township police in which 10 students were arrested for drug sales.Read the whole story in the Altoona (PA) Mirror.

Event: A North American Labor Relations Conference

Association of Labor Relations Agencies

Presents

A North American Labor Relations Conference

Seeking  Solutions  in  Difficult  Times

Monday, July 21, 2008

Sheraton Burlington Hotel and Conference Center
Burlington, Vermont

Sponsored By:
New England Consortium of State Labor Relations Agencies

Hosted By:
Vermont Labor Relations Board

8:00 – 9:00 a.m.    REGISTRATION

9:00 – 9:15 a.m.    WELCOME

Presiding:  Elizabeth MacPherson, Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board, and President, Association of Labor Relations Agencies

Welcome:  James Douglas, Governor of Vermont

9:15 – 10:15 a.m.    KEYNOTE ADDRESS – Innovative Approaches to Improving Union Density

Speaker: Buzz Hargrove, President, Canadian Auto Workers

Discussion Leader: Martin Malin, Professor and Director, Institute for Law and the Workplace,
                               Chicago-Kent College of Law

Our keynote speaker will focus on the recent agreement the Canadian Auto Workers reached
with Magna, the largest auto parts manufacturer in Canada, regarding the unionization of
Magna’s Canadian Facilities as an innovative approach to improving union density.  Following
the keynote address, Professor Malin will lead a discussion among conference participants on
lessons to be learned from the CAW-Magna agreement for other labor-management relationships
in the United States and Canada.

10:15 a.m.    Break

10:30 – 11:45 a.m.    COMING TO TERMS WITH UNDERFUNDED EMPLOYEE & RETIREE BENEFITS

Speakers:

•    Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, Principal Authors of Pew Center On The States report Promises With a Price – Public Sector Retirement Benefits

•    James Dunn, Esq., Mickenberg, Dunn, Kochman, Lachs & Smith, PLC

•    Jonathan Leopold, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Burlington    

New GASB accounting rules, changing demographics and constrained revenues have pushed to the forefront the issue of whether a crisis is brewing in government with respect to underfunded employee and retiree benefits. The principal co-authors of a groundbreaking report will discuss the long-term costs of these benefits, whether states are prepared to pay the significant bill coming due, and why it matters. The other panelists will present a case study of ongoing struggles of a municipal employer and its unions addressing an underfunded pension plan.      

11:45 a.m.–1:15 p.m.   LUNCHEON ADDRESS- Decline and Disenchantment: Reflections on the                                                                         
                                                                          Aging of the National Labor Relations Board

Speaker: Wilma Liebman, Member, National Labor Relations Board

The senior member of the National Labor Relations Board presents her views on the relevance of the National Labor Relations Act in the contemporary workplace and the performance of the National Labor Relations Board in administering the Act.

1:30 – 3:00 p.m.        CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS

I – State of the States: State Government Budget Shortfalls and Labor
                Relations Implications

        Speakers:

•    Elizabeth McNichol, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Co-Author of Center report on State Budget Shortfalls

•    Marc Pfeiffer, Deputy Director, Division of Local Government Services, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs                                 

•    Peter Thor, Director of Policy and Planning, AFSCME Council 4 (invited)

The panelists will address state government budget shortfalls in Northeastern states, exacerbated by a declining economy, and the existing and potential labor relations impacts of the deteriorating budgets.

II – Kentucky River, British Columbia Health and the Right to Organize and Bargain                                                                                             

    Speakers:

•    Jennifer Henry, President, United Professions of Vermont

•    Peter Robb, Esq., Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC

•    Deborah McPherson, President, British Columbia Nurses’ Union

This workshop will discuss and contrast the legal frameworks in the United States and Canada concerning the extension of collective bargaining rights to employees. The National Labor Relations Board’s Kentucky River decisions will be contrasted with the British Columbia Health decision of the Canada Supreme Court, which results in a more expansive view of the rights of employees to belong to unions than is reflected in the Kentucky River decisions.

III – Dealing with the Interplay of FMLA, ADA and Workers Compensation Statutes in a
         Union Setting                                                

Speakers:

•    Susan Gilfillan, Esq., McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan (Vermont)

•    Jules Smith, Esq., Blitman & King (New York)

The complex interplay among family and medical leave, disabilities and worker compensation laws present an ongoing challenge for unions and employers. The panelists will seek to dispel the confusion and guide participants through the maze of resolving situations implicating these statutes.

3:00 p.m.    Break

3:15 – 4:45 p.m.    Union Activities in the Electronic Workplace

Moderator:  Martin Malin, Professor and Director, Institute for Law and the Workplace, Chicago-Kent College of Law

Panelists:
•    Peter Conrad, Esq., Proskauer Rose LLP

•    Barbara Camens, Esq., Barr & Camens

•    Gills Touchette, Ad.E., Senior Partner, Ogilvy Renault

The National Labor Relations Board’s controversial Register Guard decision will be used as the springboard for this interactive session addressing whether employees may use work e-mail systems for organizing and other union communications.

If you wish to make a hotel reservation, reservations must be received no later than June 20th, 2008.  To obtain the conference rate of $97.00/night plus 10% tax, mention the Association of Labor Relations Agencies.   

Online: http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/ALRA

Phone: 1-800-325-3535

You may register online at: http://www.regonline.com/Advocates

OR:

Complete the Registration information below and return with a check made out to ALRA Conference 2008.

     Registration for the conference must be made by July 7th, 2008. 

Please type or print all information below clearly.  A separate registration form is required for each attendee.   This form may be copied for additional registrations.

Mail to:
ALRA Conference 2008
C/O Melinda Moz-Knight
Vermont Labor Relations Board
133 State Street
Montpelier, VT  05633-6101

Please contact Melinda Moz-Knight by phone at (802) 828-2700 or e-mail melinda.moz-knight@state.vt.us for further information.

Continuing Legal Education Credits are pending in New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island

Events: International Assessment and Retention Conference

Check it out here.

Law: A compendium on animal rights activists

1.  University plans to sue activists

In the wake of a firebomb attack earlier this month against a researcher from the University of California at Los Angeles, the university regents are planning to file a lawsuit this morning to block animal-rights activists from harassing UCLA employees.

The University of California will seek a temporary restraining order against five people and three animal-rights organizations that university officials say have either claimed responsibility for attacks against UCLA researchers or have promoted unlawful acts. The university is also requesting a permanent injunction barring the same individuals and organizations from threatening researchers or disseminating personal information about UCLA personnel who conduct research using animals. Read the rest here.

2.  The PETA web site

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 1.8 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.

PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue.Visit the site here.

3.  The other side of the story

Profile: AnimalScam.com

The modern animal rights movement is not what it seems. Today's activists have perverted once-sensible animal welfare goals by putting animals ahead of human beings and employing a "by any means necessary" philosophy to achieve their goals of "total animal liberation."

Led by PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, and other activist groups, the animal liberation movement does not seek to improve animals' lives. Its goal is to place unnecessary restrictions on ordinary people like you.Visit the Center for Consumer Freedom here.   

4.  For a fictional treatment

Ned McAdoo and the Molly Maguires

by Claire and Jim Castagnera

This novel weaves historical events and present day America into a tepestry that explores the early days of the labor rights movement and the Molly Maguires and also examines how perspectives on past events change over time.

(188 pages) Paperback: $12.95 Download: $9.95

Events: US Students compete on knowledge of EU economy

STUDENTS FROM RUMSON-FAIR HAVEN HIGH SCHOOL (NJ) RISE TO THE EURO CHALLENGE
High School Teams Get Dollars for Euro Knowledge

Following the final rounds at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, four teams emerged as the winners of this year's Euro Challenge competition. Students from Rumson-Fair Haven High School in Rumson, NJ (1st place), Montclair High School in Montclair, NJ (2nd place), Mt. Saint Mary Academy in Watchung, NJ (3rd place), and East Hampton High School in East Hampton, CT (4th place), beat the top teams from 12 other high schools on this last day of intense competition.

The winning teams receive nearly $20,000 in cash awards and the top two teams also get a trip to Washington, DC. Prizes are generously provided by the Moody's Foundation.

European Union Ambassador John Bruton was among the spectators marvelling at the skills and knowledge showcased in today's competition.

"I congratulate the winning team from Rumson-Fair Haven High School for their outstanding performance in this year's Euro Challenge competition," said Ambassador Bruton. "I was very impressed by their knowledge and their display of enthusiasm and team spirit in the finals.

"We had a record number of teams participating in this year's Euro Challenge and they all showed a remarkable level of knowledge of the European Union and the Euro.

"The Euro Challenge is a tremendous event. The young people who compete learn a great deal about the euro and the EU and get an appreciation for why the relationship between Europe and America is the strongest in the world. I welcome the fact that more schools are taking advantage of this unique opportunity."

Law: New York adds charge for criminal record check

Please be advised that New York State recently passed legislation increasing the cost of a New York State Criminal search through the Office of Court Administration (OCA). The price increase for Criminal History Record Searches is effective May 1, 2008; an additional $3.00 search fee will be added per name. Please note that Sterling was notified about this change on 04/30/2008. We regret not being able to inform you sooner. We are in the process of obtaining an official letter from the Director of the OCA and will have the document on file at Sterling should you request a copy.

The court cost increase will be reflected in your May Sterling invoice. Should you have any questions, please contact your Sterling representative or you may reach us at 800-899-2272.

Sterling remains committed to providing quality service and customer satisfaction. 

---

---

Thank you,
Sterling Testing Systems, Inc.

---

Opinion: Next week's Attorney at Large column

Another Reason I Won’t Be Voting for Obama
By James Castagnera
      Jimmy Carter is our best former president.  He was an ineffectual chief executive, however.   Last week he endorsed Barack Obama.  His endorsement is one more reason I won’t be voting for the candidate who some three years ago was a mere Illinois legislator.
     When Carter ran for president in 1976, I was still in my twenties, about the same age as many of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters today.  I was much taken by Carter’s sincerity and straight talk.  Carter had been governor of Georgia, which is to say, a far more experienced politician than Senator Obama.
      Just the same, his presidency was somewhere between a mediocrity and a disaster.  His White House sent bill after bill to Capitol Hill, only to see them eviscerated by the powers that were.  His ultimate humiliation came with the taking of American hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, followed by a disastrous attempt by the American military to rescue them.  Heaping on the insults, the Iranian government waited to release the American hostages until Ronald Reagan’s inauguration day.
      A colleague of mine, Political Scientist Michael Brogan, agrees.  “This is the revisiting of the ’76 election, “ he says.  “The economy is close to recession.  People are tired of the Republicans.  Gas prices are creeping up.”  And, so, he adds, American voters are predictably turning to yet another amateur politician in hopes he will work miracles in Washington.
      The trouble, as I’ve pointed out in this space before, is that the White House is no place for on-the-job training. 
      Pundits compare Obama to Kennedy for his youth and charisma.  I compare the two in terms of JFK’s apprenticeship in office.  Humiliated by the Bay of Pigs and his first summit with Krushchev, Kennedy’s perceived weakness and naiveté led to the Soviet adventurism with Cuban-based missiles.  The legend is that Jack and Bobby used masterful diplomacy to better the Reds.  That we came frighteningly close to a nuclear exchange with the Evil Empire is probably closer to the truth.
     Carter is another case on point. Stagflation was one phenomenon of his presidency.  In the words of Wikipedia, “During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. There was also a growing federal budget deficit which increased to 66 billion dollars.”
       Ineffectual on almost all fronts, walking around the Oval Office in a sweater (like some presidential Mr. Rogers) to emphasize energy conservation, in 1979 the former peanut farmer gave his famous “malaise” speech in which he said, “I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.... I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might. ...  The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation….  I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel.”  Wow, was that ever inspiring!
       Carter entered the White House with the same high hopes expressed by JFK and now by Obama.  Meanwhile, the practitioners of “real politick” nationally and internationally salivated, sharpening their cutlery.  They made meals of Kennedy and Carter and would do the same with Obama.
(Jim Castagnera, formerly of Jim Thorpe, is the Associate Provost and Associate Counsel at Rider University.  A Collection of his columns is available at www.lulu.com.]
Just search "Castagnera" here.

Events: NAFSA Conference Connection

If you are among the 6000+ attending NAFSA's annual convention in Washington later this month, consider using "Conference Connection":

NAFSA makes it easier than ever to connect with friends, set up meetings, and learn what's going on at the NAFSA 2008 Annual Conference & Expo, May 25-30, in Washington, D.C....with the Conference Connection Networking & Messaging Center.

Get connected to the Annual Conference & Expo community before, during,  and after the event!

Now that you've registered for the annual conference, log on using your NAFSA ID and password to:

• Create a personal profile, so others can find you
• Learn who else is attending
• Schedule on-site meetings
• Post invitations
• Find long-lost friends and colleagues
• Follow up with people after the conference

Available 24/7 from any Internet terminal, Conference Connection replaces the old bulletin board routine and enables you to have a more productive, more enjoyable annual conference. For easy access onsite at the conference, banks of computers will be available in the Registration Area for your convenience.

The Conference Connection remains open through June 2008 to allow for maximum networking among participants. Visit www.nafsa.org/connection often!                               

Law A.V. v. iParadigms

Castagnera's take on the case here.Download 0805_Castagnera.pdf

Read this article and more in the May issue of the Greentree Gazette.  Subscribe here.

Law: Are you kidding me? Which century is this?

       

Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath

       

Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

LET GO:  “I wanted it on record that I am a pacifist,” Wendy Gonaver said. She wants an apology and a teaching job for next year.

Cal State system ousts another instructor who objects on religious grounds to a pledge adopted by California in 1952 to root out communists.

By Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 2, 2008

When Wendy Gonaver was offered a job teaching American studies at Cal State Fullerton this academic year, she was pleased to be headed back to the classroom to talk about one of her favorite themes: protecting constitutional freedoms.Read the full story from the LA Times.

Law: Congress may consolidate tuition tax credits

GAO Summary:

Higher Education: Multiple Higher Education Tax Incentives Create Opportunities for Taxpayers to Make Costly Mistakes

GAO-08-717T  May 1, 2008

Highlights Page (PDF)   Full Report (PDF, 42 pages)   

Federal assistance helps students and families pay for postsecondary education through several policy tools--grant and loan programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and more recently enacted tax preferences. This testimony summarizes our 2005 report and provides updates on (1) how Title IV assistance compares to that provided through the tax code (2) the extent to which tax filers effectively use education tax preferences, (3) potential benefits and costs of simplifying federal student aid, and (4) what is known about the effectiveness of federal assistance. This hearing is an opportunity to consider whether changes should be made in the government's overall strategy for providing such assistance or to the individual programs and tax provisions that provide the assistance. This statement is based on updates to previously published GAO work and reviews of relevant literature.

Title IV student aid and tax preferences provide assistance to a wide range of students and families in different ways. While both help students meet current expenses, tax preferences also assist students and families with saving for and repaying postsecondary costs. Both serve students and families with a range of incomes, but some forms of Title IV aid--grant aid, in particular--provide assistance to those whose incomes are lower, on average, than is the case with tax preferences. Tax preferences require more responsibility on the part of students and families than Title IV aid because taxpayers must identify applicable tax preferences, understand complex rules concerning their use, and correctly calculate and claim credits or deductions. While the tax preferences are a newer policy tool, the number of tax filers using them has grown quickly, surpassing the number of students aided under Title IV in 2002. Some tax filers do not appear to make optimal education-related tax decisions. For example, our analysis of a limited number of 2005 tax returns indicated that 41 percent of eligible tax filers did not claim either the tuition deduction or a tax credit. In so doing, these tax filers failed to reduce their tax liability by $219, on average, and 10 percent of these filers could have reduced their tax liability by over $500. One explanation for these taxpayers' choices may be the complexity of postsecondary tax provisions, which experts have commonly identified as difficult for tax filers to use. Simplifying the grants, loans, and tax preferences may reduce complexities in higher education financing, including reducing the number of eligible tax filers that do not claim tax preferences, but more research would be necessary to understand the full benefits and costs of any such changes. Little is known about the effectiveness of Title IV aid or tax preferences in promoting, for example, postsecondary attendance or school choice, in part because of research data and methodological challenges. As a result, policymakers do not have information that would allow them to make the most efficient use of limited federal resources to help students and families.

Analysis here.

Events: Neocon meeting on Middle East had seige mentality

When the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, or Asmea, held its inaugural meeting here last weekend, the siege mentality felt by its members—many of whom are conservative researchers—was palpable.

Even the group's renowned co-founder, Bernard Lewis, sounded a note of desolation about the state of Middle East studies in his keynote address at the meeting. Freedom to study and write on the topic of Islam, said Mr. Lewis, a professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, was under assault by a Cerberus of "postmodernism," "political correctness," and "multiculturalism" in academe.Read the rest of the story here.

Trends: Competition for top students may work against diversity goals

One after another at this time of year, elite colleges trumpet the outstanding SAT scores of the applicants they have admitted. The question often raised by such announcements is just how much those scores matter.

Two recent studies conclude that they matter quite a lot. The researchers assert that selective colleges give excessive weight to SAT scores for the sake of bolstering their college-guide rankings and, in doing so, greatly complicate their pursuit of diversity.Read the whole story in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Events: SAP hosts a conference in Orlando

ASUG Annual Conference 

One Destination.
Endless Opportunities.

SAPPHIRE 2008 Orlando and the ASUG Annual Conference  
MAY 4 - 7, 2008

============================================================

VIEW LIVE KEYNOTE WEBCASTS -- EXCLUSIVELY AVAILABLE AT SAP.COM 
INSIDE ACCESS 

WATCH KEYNOTES LIVE AT 
http://www.sapandasug.com/SAP/SAPPHIRE2008/index.cfm?fuseaction=email.Redirect&EID=138A617C75&CID=96A46373720301

LEARN HOW TO SHARPEN YOUR ORGANIZATION'S COMPETITIVE EDGE 
May 4 - 7, 2008 

If you can't attend SAPPHIRE 2008 Orlando and the ASUG Annual 
Conference, May 4 - 7, you can still learn from the insightful 
keynote presentations how SAP and its ecosystem of partners are 
helping businesses leverage IT solutions to enable their 
organizations to act as seamless enterprises worldwide. 

USE ANY OF THE KEYNOTE LINKS BELOW TO CREATE A REMINDER IN OUTLOOK.

Monday, May 5 
8:30 a.m. - 9:15 a.m. 
"The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" 
Patrick Lencioni, Founder and President, 
The Table Group 
View presentation at
http://www.sap.com/community/events/2008_05_SAPPHIRE_US/SAPPHIRE_US_0505_01.ics

Tuesday, May 6 
9:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. 
General Session 
Henning Kagermann, Co-CEO, SAP AG 
View presentation at
http://www.sap.com/community/events/2008_05_SAPPHIRE_US/SAPPHIRE_US_0506_01.ics

Tuesday, May 6 
2:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. 
General Session 
Leo Apotheker, Co-CEO, SAP AG  
View presentation at
http://www.sap.com/community/events/2008_05_SAPPHIRE_US/SAPPHIRE_US_0506_02.ics 

Tuesday, May 6 
4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. 
General Session 
John Schwarz, CEO, Business Objects, 
an SAP Company 
View presentation at
http://www.sap.com/community/events/2008_05_SAPPHIRE_US/SAPPHIRE_US_0506_03.ics

Wednesday, May 7 
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. 
General Session 
Hasso Plattner, Co-Founder and Chairman 
of the Supervisory Board, SAP AG 
View presentation at
http://www.sap.com/community/events/2008_05_SAPPHIRE_US/SAPPHIRE_US_0507_01.ics 

Watch keynotes live and forward to your colleagues at 
http://www.sapandasug.com/SAP/SAPPHIRE2008/index.cfm?fuseaction=email.Redirect&EID=138A617C75&CID=96A46373720301

Please note: Program agenda, speakers, and entertainment are 
subject to change without notice. 

============================================================ 

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.sap.com/mk/get/g_basic_un_subscribe

Copyright/Trademark: 
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/copyright/index.aspx

Privacy: 
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/privacy.aspx

Impressum: 
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.aspx

SAP Americas, 3999 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073
					</pre>
				

Law: The latest in the never-ending saga of Florida university governance

Read it here from a Tampa daily newspaper.

Publications: Cengage Products on offer

Dear Professor,

Final exams are around the corner and summer will be here before we know it!  With that in mind, I want to be sure that you have all the materials (textbooks and/or technology) that you may need to finalize your decisions and begin preparing for your upcoming courses.  I am writing to check in and see if I could help:

· Expedite review copies and make suggestions to you for your upcoming fall decisions…

· Send instructor resources/support materials to you for course preparation over the summer break…

· Provide information and/or ISBNs for new editions…

· Set up any ‘bundles’ to help save your students money when purchasing through the bookstore…

I welcome the opportunity to send complimentary review copies that you may find of interest. Please check out our online catalogs:  www.course.com and www.delmarlearning.com.

Simply provide me with your course name/number and the estimated enrollment for fall, and I will have materials sent right out to you.  Please let me know if there is anything at all that I can do to help!

Good luck with the rest of the spring term!

Best regards,

Chris

Chris Ataide

Sales Representative, Career & Professional Group

Course Technology | Delmar Learning

Cengage Learning

 

(o) 800-648-7450 x8309 (f) 617-757-7958

(e) chris.ataide@cengage.com

 

Customer Support: (800) 648-7450

Order Fulfillment: (800) 354-9706

 

www.course.com

www.delmar.com

www.cengage.com

Employment and Labor Law, 6th Edition

Patrick J. Cihon - Syracuse University

James Ottavio Castagnera - Pinnacle Employment Law Institute and Rider University

ISBN-10: 0324663668  ISBN-13: 9780324663662

784 Pages    Casebound

© 2008      Published 

Companion Site

About this Book

Why You Need It

Online Resources

• Overview | 
• Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PART 1. COMMON-LAW EMPLOYMENT ISSUES.
1. Employment Contracts and Wrongful Discharge.
2. Commonly Committed Workplace Torts.
PART 2. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY.
3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Race Discrimination.
4. Gender and Family Issues Legislation: Title VII and Other Legislation.
5. Discrimination Based on Religion and National Origin; Procedures under Title VII.
6. Discrimination Based on Age and Disability.
7. Other EEO Legislation.
PART 3. EMPLOYMENT LAW ISSUES.
8. Occupational Safety and Health.
9. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
10. The Fair Labor Standards Act.
11. Employee Welfare Programs: Social Security, Workers' Compensation, and Unemployment Compensation.
PART 4. LABOR RELATIONS LAW.
12. The Development of American Labor Unions and the National Labor Relations Act.
13. The National Labor Relations Board: Organization, Procedures, and Jurisdiction.
14. The Unionization Process.
15. Unfair Labor Practices by Employers and Unions.
16. Collective Bargaining.
17. Picketing and Strikes.
18. The Enforcement and Administration of the Collective Agreement.
19. The Rights of Union Members.
20. Public Sector Labor Relations.
APPENDICES.
A. Civil Rights Act of 1964.
B. Text of Title 42 USC Section 1981.
C. Extracts from the Age Discrimination Employment Act.
D. Extracts from the Family and Medical Leave Act.
E. Extracts from the Americans with Disabilities Act.
F. Extracts from the Rehabilitation Act.
G. Text of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. Text of the Labor Management Relations Act.
I. Text of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
Glossary.
List of Cases.
Index.

Visit the related web page here.

 

Publications: Free citation software

Hi everyone-

Below I have posted the address of the website that hosts Publish or Perish,
the free citation analysis software I mentioned in our meeting this week.
http://www.harzing.com/index.htm

The program can be a little buggy at times and you have to watch out for
duplicates, but I guess we can't be too picky about a free program!

Law: Judge selects a buyer for bankrupt Myers University

An Ohio judge has chosen a buyer for the troubled Myers University, in Cleveland, selecting an investor from Connecticut who had previously acquired the nonprofit Heald College, in California, and Salem International University, in West Virginia.

The investor, Bradley Palmer of the Palm Ventures Group, has told the court that his fund, operating as Myers Education LLC, would provide $2-million to Myers immediately, and eventually invest an additional $5-million. Some of the initial $2-million would go toward paying off a portion of the debts at Myers, which exceed $7.5-million.Read the whole story here.

Law: Senate acts to thwart student-loan crisis

The U.S. Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that seeks to avert a shortfall in student loans, a day after President Bush urged Congress to act quickly on the legislation.

The bill, HR 5715, which the House of Representatives passed in mid-April, seeks to stem the departure of loan companies from the federally guaranteed student-loan program and reassure families that student loans will be available in the fall. More than 50 lenders have left the federal program in recent weeks, amid a credit crunch that has spread from the housing market to the student-loan industry.Read the rest in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Opinion: Immigrants strain US resources

By Mark Cromer
May 1, 2008

» Discuss Article As the crisis of dwindling long-term water supplies hangs over the American Southwest like vultures circling for dinner, everyone from academics to journalists is starting to pay attention.

One example is UC Santa Barbara anthropology professor emeritus Brian Fagan. In his article, "Learning from our arid past,” Fagan contrasts human flexibility in adapting to sustained aridity in California a millennium ago with the challenges we face today.Read the rest of this opinion in the LA Times.

LAW: DOL faults recipients of job-training grants

By Carol D. Leonnig

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 30, 2008; Page A17

 

In the past seven years, the Labor Department awarded more than $271 million to groups to help train workers for high-demand jobs, but a new audit suggests that the agency often failed to ensure the public was getting something for its tax dollars. Read the story in the Washington Post.</