How the EEOC’s Maintenance of an “Alleged Offenders” Log Can Help Prevent the Next Harvey Weinstein

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JOSEPH SCOPELITIS

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and recent graduate Joseph A. Scopelitis argue that the EEOC should maintain a log of “alleged offenders” to help prevent the next Harvey Weinstein. Estreicher and Scopelitis explain why such a log would effectively balance the interests of the alleged offender and victim, the employer, and the public.

Read More

Wool v. Office of Professional Regulation

Citation: 2020 VT 44

Opinion Date: June 12, 2020

Judge: Cohen

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

Petitioner Kirk Wool appeals the superior court’s dismissal of his petition for mandamus relief against the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Petitioner was an inmate in the custody of the Vermont Department of Corrections. In 2015, he filed a disciplinary complaint against a psychologist, alleging that the psychologist had falsified certain scores in a risk assessment and that these scores force him to “max out” his sentence and serve fourteen additional years of incarceration. In 2016, while his complaint was under investigation, petitioner wrote to OPR requesting copies of the records the psychologist filed to defend against the complaint. Petitioner soought the records to rebut the psychologist’s defense with further evidence in support of the complaint. OPR replied that it was precluded by statute from releasing the requested records to the public because the complaint was under investigation. Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and for extraordinary relief in superior court, arguing that as the complainant in the disciplinary proceedings, he has a due process right to the records under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions. finding that Petitioner lacked standing and failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim, the superior court granted OPR's motions to dismiss. Although the Vermont Supreme Court held that petitioner had standing, it affirmed the court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.