WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW, WISCONSIN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, WISCONSIN JOURNAL OF LAW, GENDER & SOCIETY Mock Write-On Workshop.

WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW,

WISCONSIN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL,

WISCONSIN JOURNAL OF LAW, GENDER & SOCIETY

Mock Write-On Workshop

Tonight’s Presentation

Introductions

Context

Problem Overview

Small Group Q&A

Introductions

Context: Time Frame

Long-Term Calendar

The journals will host mandatory meetings in April to discuss the Write-On in greater detail. You will receive an e-mail about these meetings later in the semester.

Wisconsin Law Review’s Diversity Committee will visit each student organization this spring to give information about UW’s journals and the Write-On in general.

The Write-On will take place during the two weeks immediately following final exams. We usually have membership offers out in early July.

Context: The Write-On

Write-On Basics

Time Frame: The Write-On will take place in the two weeks following the last day of 1L exams

Joint Write-On: The same materials can be submitted to all three journals

These Materials Include: Journal Placement Preference Note Citation Exercise Personal Statement Non-Collaboration Affidavit

Write-On Grading

Each journal assigns different weights to each component of the Write-On.

But, all journals give the most weight to the Note.

Of all the components, the Note will take the most time to complete.

Problem Overview

Problem Overview

To state a prima facie retaliation claim, most courts require the plaintiff to prove three elements: (1) the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employee suffered some injury or adverse

employment action; and (3) there was a causal link between the

protected activity and the injury

This problem deals with the question of whether rejecting unwanted sexual advances can constitute protected activity.

Issue Spotting

Issue-spotting that scored points for this problem:

Recognizing that unwanted sexual advances violate Title VI.

Recognizing that there is a split in authority as to whether rejecting the advances of a coworker or supervisor can in itself constitute protected activity for the purposes of Title VII retaliation.

Recognizing that Moberly falls under the opposition prong, rather than the participation prong, of the Title VII retaliation statute.

Recognizing that at least one court requires that the employer be aware of the protected activity.

Issue Spotting

Issue-spotting that scored points for this problem:

Recognizing the Supreme Court has potentially opened the door for “silent opposition” claims via its two broad holdings in Burlington and Crawford.

Entering into some form of analysis regarding the three-pronged test versus the four-pronged test and which should be used to ensure the statute’s intent is fulfilled.

Entering into some form of analysis regarding whether rejection of advances can constitute “protected activity” overall.

Small Group Q&A

Conclusion

Trevor Brown ([email protected])

Kim Hardtke ([email protected])

Caitlin Madden ([email protected])