Tag Archives: Mary Beth Hogan

Seven Steps to Mitigate Hazing Risks

by Helen V. Cantwell, Mary Beth Hogan, Arian June, Daniel Alford, Omid Golmohammadi, and Michael Compton McGregor

Top left to right: Helen V. Cantwell, Mary Beth Hogan, and Arian June. Bottom right to left: Daniel Alford, Omid Golmohammadi, and Michael Compton McGregor. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

Hazing and abuse in athletics at academic institutions have reached a boiling point recently, with high-profile allegations levied at top universities. These incidents are not only painful for those students personally affected, but they can also result in intense media coverage, reputational harm, and legal actions.

As recent events have shown, it is imperative for academic institutions to have a plan for both preventing and addressing hazing. The best approach is to be proactive, as no institution is above scrutiny and most, if not all, institutions have room for improvement. In order to help mitigate potential legal, financial and reputational risks, administrators and board trustees at these institutions should consider taking the following steps:

Continue reading →

The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Affirmative Action Decision: Potential Implications for Private-Sector Employers

by Jyotin Hamid, Simone S. Hicks, Mary Beth Hogan, Arian M. June, Tricia Bozyk Sherno, Rachel Tennell, and Katelyn Masket

Photos of the authors

Top row from left to right: Jyotin Hamid, Simone S. Hicks, Mary Beth Hogan, and Arian M. June.
Bottom row from left to right: Tricia Bozyk Sherno, Rachel Tennell, and Katelyn Masket.
(Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to issue a widely anticipated decision next month concerning the permissibility of race-conscious affirmative action in higher education in the Harvard College and University of North Carolina cases.[1] Although these cases arise in the context of education, not employment, and do not formally concern laws governing private-sector employment, we expect that the decision may have far-reaching implications for how courts, lawmakers, employers, and employees address efforts to promote diversity in private-sector workplaces. In particular, the decision may have an impact on how employers navigate the line between permissible efforts to promote workplace diversity and avoiding so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits brought by employees who may claim that they are disadvantaged by such efforts.

Continue reading →

Insulated No More: The Seila Decision and the End of the Independent CFPB Director

by Courtney M. Dankworth, Mary Beth Hogan, Gregory J. Lyons, Erol Gulay, David Imamura, Alexandra N. Mogul, and Victoria L. Recalde

On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, finding unconstitutional the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (the “CFPB” or “Bureau”) leadership structure in which a single director is removable by the President only for cause. This “for cause” limitation on the President’s removal powers by the authors of Dodd-Frank made the CFPB leader more independent than the leaders of other executive agencies. In addition, given the CFPB Director’s five year term, a CFPB Director appointed by one President could remain in office well into the tenure of the next.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Seila eliminates this “for cause” protection, ending the CFPB’s insulated political status and opening up the CFPB to leadership change when a new President takes office. This decision will have a narrow immediate impact, since the CFPB is currently headed by an appointee of President Trump, but will have greater meaning if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the presidency in the fall. More generally, the decision will lead to a CFPB that is more closely aligned with the political priorities of whichever administration is in power.

Continue reading →