Banning Noncompetes in Virginia

Banning Noncompetes in Virginia

Read Full Article (PDF)

  

Banning Noncompetes in Virginia

 

The past decade has seen a nationwide wave of reform in noncompete law, specifically the limitation of noncompete agreements. Since 2016, ten states—including Virginia in 2020— banned the use of noncompete agreements against certain “lowwage” employees. In order to stay ahead of this curve and ensure Virginia remains and grows as one of the top states to do business, this Article suggests that Virginia—like its neighbor, the District of Columbia, initially did in 2021—pass a complete ban of all noncompete agreements in the employment context. Such a ban would make Virginia a lucrative destination for entrepreneurs and startups by maximizing the job and employee market and keeping the best business opportunities for employers and employees alike in-state. The Article forecasts this effect by examining the rise of California’s Silicon Valley, where employee noncompete agreements are banned, and the converse decline of innovation in Michigan since 1985, when the state accidentally repealed its noncompete ban. Virginia would specifically benefit from a ban of employee noncompetes because its current noncompete law is inadequate. This Article argues that Virginia courts’ longstanding three-prong test weighing legitimate business interest, undue hardship, and public policy is dangerously unpredictable—so much so that the Supreme Court of Virginia once upheld and struck down the exact same noncompete agreement in two different cases—resulting in legal guesswork and unfair bargaining power between employer and employee. This Article also suggests that Virginia’s 2020 “low wage” ban insufficiently addresses the issues at hand and even further adds to the burden of deciphering the law. While some may claim employee noncompete agreements are necessary to protect legitimate business interests and advance the freedom of contract, this Article responds that such business interests are already adequately protected by other, less problematic provisions—namely, confidentiality and nonsolicitation agreements—and that the freedom of contract is not any less valuable than the freedom of trade, which employee noncompete agreements severely restrain. Finally, this Article proposes model legislation to aid the Virginia General Assembly, and other jurisdictions who may follow suit, in passing such a ban.

Christopher J. Sullivan *

Justin A. Ritter **

*Associate, Ritter Law PLLC, Charlottesville, Virginia. J.D., 2022, University of Richmond School of Law. Editor-in-Chief, University of Richmond Law Review, Volume 56.

**Founder, Ritter Law PLLC, Charlottesville, Virginia. J.D., 2011, Penn State Dickinson Law.

 

Graphic Justice, Humor, and the Democratization of Legal Discourse

Graphic Justice, Humor, and the Democratization of Legal Discourse

Read Full Article (PDF)

 

Graphic Justice, Humor, and the Democratization of Legal Discourse

 

The global popularity of comics has propelled scholarship about “graphic justice,” a term Thomas Giddens coined to refer to the intersection of comics and law. While much graphic justice scholarship seeks to dignify comics by analyzing their “serious” engagement with law, this Article evaluates how recent scholarship in comics form has deployed humor for critical purposes. Through subverting genre conventions, such scholarship has democratized discourse in fields including constitutional law, criminal law, and intellectual property law. The graphic justice texts discussed used humor as a vital tool to advocate for reforms to laws, legal eduction and scholarship, and the profession. Law faculty in a variety of courses can foster an inclusive learning environment and spark students’ critical thinking about the discipline by incorporating humorous graphic texts into their classes. Moreover, in representing law through an ascendant popular culture form, graphic justice texts forge a “common law” that may restore public confidence in the legal system during a precarious time for the rule of law world-wide.

Almas Khan *

*Assistant Professor of Law, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law.

 

Filling Lower Court Vacancies in Congress’ Lame Duck Session

Filling Lower Court Vacancies in Congress’ Lame Duck Session

Read Full Article (PDF)

 

Filling Lower Court Vacancies in Congress’ Lame Duck Session

 

In this midterm election year of 2022, the nation’s divided political parties are in a battle royale to win the exceedingly close Senate majority. One important explanation for the fight is that the party which assumes the next Senate majority will necessarily have considerable power to affect the confirmation of federal judges. For example, during Donald Trump’s presidency, Republicans controlled the Senate; therefore, the chief executive and the upper chamber proposed and confirmed fifty-four accomplished,
extremely conservative, young appeals court, and 174 district court, jurists. The Republican White House and Senate majority confirmed judges by rejecting or deemphasizing the rules and conventions that have long governed the selection process and concomitantly provided highly capable, mainstream jurists who improve ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, ideological, and experiential court diversity. Former President Trump and the Republican chamber in the 116th Congress approved fourteen lower court judges promptly after Joe Biden had defeated Trump. These phenomena have jeopardized federal court ideological balance, citizen regard for the judicial selection process, and federal court diversity. Notwithstanding which party realizes a majority in this November’s midterm elections, the present slim Democratic Party majority needs to rapidly convene a lame duck session, which rigorously canvasses and confirms myriad jurists after the imminent elections. Those factors deserve review to comprehend how President Biden and Senate lawmakers can best promote appointments
throughout the upcoming lame duck session.

Carl Tobias *

*Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law.

 

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Read Full Article (PDF)

 

Acknowledgements

 

Over the past year serving as Editor-in-Chief of the University of Richmond Law Review, I have read over 1,400 pages of legal scholarship. I have reviewed over 8,500 footnotes and even more sources. I have opened the Bluebook to consult the Table 6 abbreviations more times than I can count—or would ever want to admit. Nothing, however, has posed a more daunting challenge in my tenure than finding the right words to leave in these few pages here. After all Volume 56 and I have been through, after all we have accomplished, where does one even begin to completely yet briefly acknowledge the moments, memories, and people who brought this journal to where it is today?

Christopher J. Sullivan *

*Editor-in-Chief, University of Richmond Law Review Vol. 56. J.D., 2022, University of Richmond School of Law.

 

A Music Industry Circuit Split: The De Minimis Exception in Digital Sampling

A Music Industry Circuit Split: The De Minimis Exception in Digital Sampling

Read Full Article (PDF)

 

A Music Industry Circuit Split: The De Minimis Exception in Digital Sampling

 

When hip-hop icon Biz Markie released his album “All Samples Cleared!” he joked of the end of what was known as the “Golden Age” of digital sampling in the hip-hop and rap music industry. The Golden Age began in the late 1980s, and because there was no regulation of the practice, it was a period of musical enlightenment in which musicians could freely utilize digital sampling without legal repercussion. However, in 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down an opinion that sent shock waves across the music industry. In Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Dimension Films, the Sixth Circuit cracked down on digital sampling when it ruled that any use of a copyrighted sound recording amounted to copyright infringement, no matter the size of the sample taken. Although the opinion was staunchly criticized, it remained the only digital sampling case decided by the federal court of appeals for over ten years. Yet, in 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit formalized the divide when it held that the de minimis defense—the rule that a small amount of copying is permitted—does, in fact, apply to sound recordings. This opinion stands in direct opposition to the Bridgeport holding, thereby creating a circuit split on the issue of de minimis use of digital sampling. If this rift remains unresolved, it will continue to send a wave of unpredictability across the music industry that will both chill artistic creativity and stifle the judicial economy.

Michaela S. Morrissey *

*J.D., 2022, University of Richmond School of Law.