
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


If you think you’ve worked in a bad job you might want to first hear the first case we have this week, brought to you by IJ’s Michael Soyfer. It might give you a bit of cheerful perspective. An employee was out with Covid when suddenly her employer needed her password for an urgent task. She shared it with a coworker friend which then got the job done. Months later, though, the two workers left the company and sued for sexual harassment. In return, the employer sued them for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a law passed in 1986 in a simpler computing time. The end result, courtesy of the Third Circuit, is that the women did not commit a crime and their harassment claims could proceed. (If they had committed a crime then so might many of us.) Then Sam Gedge of IJ updates us on his Younger abstention quest. A group of physicians were disciplined for saying things about the Covid vaccine that Washington State officials did not like. So they sued those officials to vindicate their rights. But the Ninth Circuit said their claims could not go forward because, among other reasons, there were ongoing matters in a state agency and also because there were matters that weren’t in a state agency. Confused? Sam will try and unconfuse you.
NRA Group v. Durenleau
Stockton v. Brown
Short Circuit Younger 50th Anniversary episode
Orin Kerr amicus on the CFAA
IJ’s case for psychologist John Rosemond
IJ’s “caveman blogger” case
By Institute for Justice4.7
172172 ratings
If you think you’ve worked in a bad job you might want to first hear the first case we have this week, brought to you by IJ’s Michael Soyfer. It might give you a bit of cheerful perspective. An employee was out with Covid when suddenly her employer needed her password for an urgent task. She shared it with a coworker friend which then got the job done. Months later, though, the two workers left the company and sued for sexual harassment. In return, the employer sued them for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a law passed in 1986 in a simpler computing time. The end result, courtesy of the Third Circuit, is that the women did not commit a crime and their harassment claims could proceed. (If they had committed a crime then so might many of us.) Then Sam Gedge of IJ updates us on his Younger abstention quest. A group of physicians were disciplined for saying things about the Covid vaccine that Washington State officials did not like. So they sued those officials to vindicate their rights. But the Ninth Circuit said their claims could not go forward because, among other reasons, there were ongoing matters in a state agency and also because there were matters that weren’t in a state agency. Confused? Sam will try and unconfuse you.
NRA Group v. Durenleau
Stockton v. Brown
Short Circuit Younger 50th Anniversary episode
Orin Kerr amicus on the CFAA
IJ’s case for psychologist John Rosemond
IJ’s “caveman blogger” case

968 Listeners

377 Listeners

685 Listeners

1,113 Listeners

1,514 Listeners

988 Listeners

6,590 Listeners

307 Listeners

39 Listeners

729 Listeners

3,896 Listeners

3,330 Listeners

380 Listeners

737 Listeners

0 Listeners