PROPERTY C1E1: INFORMATION MEMO #2 (8/26/10)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT #1 (IM16-19)

B. TEAMS FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT #1 (IM20)

C. §C1 TEAMS FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT #2 (IM21)

D. §E1 TEAMS FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT #2 (IM22)

(A) WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT #1

DUE @ START OF CLASS:

Property C1: Monday September 13

Property E1: Tuesday September 14

(1) Instructions

(a) Your assignment is to make arguments based on Shack about a new hypothetical. Below, you will find the hypothetical, the list of subjects about which you must make arguments, a brief guide to how your arguments should be structured, and your assigned teammates. You should follow the general instructions for written assignments found on pp. 14-15 of Information Memo #1 and the specific instructions found below.

(b) You will work in teams of three or four students as designated below. Your team will submit one joint work-product for this assignment, which is due at the beginning of class on Monday, September 13 (C1) or Tuesday September 14 (E1). Your work-product will be a list of arguments numbered to correspond to the list of subjects in below. You should try to put each argument except #7 roughly in the form described in section 4of this memo.

(c) After reading the materials, I suggest that your team meet at least twice. At the first meeting, you can discuss and refine the first six arguments and decide who will write out the initial draft of which arguments. At the second meeting, you can edit the first six arguments and discuss what you will do for the seventh argument. Remember to consider in advance possible holidaty plans for the weekend of September 4-6, which includes Labor Day, and the weekend of September 10-12, which includes part of Rosh Hashanah,

(d) For each team, the student whose name is isted in bold will serve as the coordinator. Unless the group decides otherwise, the coordinator will be responsible for the following aspects of the assignment:

  • Organizing team meetings;
  • Getting pseudonyms from each team member;
  • Collecting work-product from other team members ;
  • Producing a single seamless document for submission that complies with all instructions;
  • Turning in the work-product on time
  • Exchanging the work-product with other teams (see (f) below)

(e) Unless the group decides otherwise, the other team members must provide any final contributions to the coordinator by 5:00 p.m. two days before the due date (i.e., Saturday September 11 for C1; Sunday September 12 for E1).

(f) By 2:00 p.m. on the date the assignment is due, the coordinator of each team will provide an electronic copy of the work-product to the coordinatorof the team listed immediately below your own on the team assignment sheet. The coordinator of the team listed at the bottom of the list will provide the copy to coordinator of the team listed at the top of the list. The coordinators will then each give copies of the other team’s submission to their own team members.

(2) Hypothetical

Trisha owns a large strawberry farm in Harmony, a U.S. state that follows State v. Shack. For several weeks each spring, Trisha hires migrant workers (MWs) to pick strawberries. The MWs, many of whom speak little or no English, live in cabins on her land during their employment.

Agricultural Management Initiative of Texas (AMIT) is a joint venture of several dozen large Texan farms, none of which grows strawberries. AMIT sends representatives outside Texas to farms where MWs are employed to provide information about available employment in Texas and, where possible, to sign workers up for these future jobs.

AMIT representatives speak several languages and only provide information regarding jobs that begin at least one week after the current job is expected to end. The farms they represent all provide transportation for the MWs to get to the Texan jobs. AMIT representatives are paid a base salary and get commissions for each MW they sign who completes a job in Texas.

Although they have not been specifically invited by the MWs working for Trisha, the AMIT representatives would like to go onto her farm to speak to the MWs while they are staying there. Trisha would like to exclude the AMIT representatives.

(3) List of Subjects for your Arguments

  1. Formulate an argument that the AMIT representatives are sufficiently similar to the service workers allowed access to the farm in Shack that Trisha should not be able to exclude them.
  2. Formulate an argument that the AMIT representatives are sufficiently different from the service workers allowed access to the farm in Shack that Trisha should be able to exclude them.
  3. Using the language from Shack that “the employer may … not deprive the migrant worker of practical access to things he needs,” formulate an argument that Trisha should not be able to exclude the AMIT representatives.
  4. Using the language from Shack that “the employer may … not deprive the migrant worker of practical access to things he needs,” formulate an argument that Trisha should be able to exclude the AMIT representatives.
  5. Formulate an argument that, if the AMIT representatives are allowed access to her farm, the potential interference with Trisha’s legitimate interests would be sufficiently small that Trisha should not be able to exclude them.
  6. Formulate an argument that, if the AMIT representatives are allowed access to her farm, the potential interference with Trisha’s legitimate interests would be sufficiently large that Trisha should be able to exclude them.
  7. Explain which arguments you think are stronger (and why): those you’ve made for AMIT (1, 3, 5) or those you’ve made for Trisha (2, 4, 6). This response need not follow the form for legal arguments described below, but should do more than repeat points you’ve already made. If your team disagrees on this issue, briefly describe the different positions team members have taken.

(4) A Common Structure Used In Making Legal Arguments

Lawyers often will use the following structure when crafting legal arguments: You begin by stating a general rule, policy or principle. If you are making the argument in a formal written document, you then provide a citation to appropriate authority to support the rule, principle or policy you are employing. You need not do that for this assignment. Next, you provide information about the situation under discussion that shows why it does or doesn’t fit within the rule, policy or principle. You then briefly note the conclusion you draw from the application of the rule, policy or principle to the facts of your situation. For this assignment, try to use a version of this structure when articulating the arguments regarding subjects 1-6 (it will not work comfortably for #7).

Here are some examples of this structure from problems discussed in class (note that there are counter-arguments to each of these):

  • The common law doctrine of necessity allows people to enter land belonging to another without the owner’s permission when necessary to prevent or avoid an immediate threat to health or safety. In Shack, the parties seeking entrance to the property were trying to provide legal advice and to remove some stitches from one of the workers housed on the property. Legal advice can be provided off-site and removal of stitches is not an emergency procedure, so the situation in Shack is not covered by the doctrine of necessity.
  • The court in Shack states that a farmer employer has no “right to isolate the migrant worker in any respect significant for the worker’s well-being.” Many Americans consider the spiritual comfort and guidance provided by access to religion and religious communities to be important elements of their well-being. Thus, the farmer-employer should not have the right to completely exclude representatives of religious groups seeking to provide information about their faith to the workers.
  • An important policy underlying the analysis in Shack is the need to overcome the difficulties providing important information to migrant workers. One of these difficulties is that many migrant workers speak little or no English. Thus, allowing teachers to come onto an employer’s land to help the workers improve their English would further Shack’s policy of helping to provide them with important information.
  • An important policy recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court as limiting its holding in Shack is the employer’s interest in smooth operation of the business. Allowing overnight conjugal visits to migrant workers might conflict with that interest by interfering with the sleep of the workers involved and of those sleeping nearby and by causing disputes between the workers. Thus, to facilitate the smooth operation of the employer’s business, Shack should not be read to require overnight conjugal visits.

(B) Assignment #1Team Assignments(Coordinator in Bold)

Section C1

Amadi, Jobe ; Foster, Brandon; Johns, Ross; Samra, Arsh

Anise, Anthony; Gavalier, Cody; Johnson, Shanelle; Saunders, Chris

Baker-Bradley, Natasha; Green, Abel; Jordan, Ashley; Schlosser, Jimmy

Bell, Brian; Habib, Payam; Jove, Scott; Shir, Jeremy

Cabrera, Richard; Hawks, Tiffany; Kottke, Josh; Sleiman, Kamal

Catania, Susie; Ionescu, Andreea; Kugbei, Sam; Taormina, Benjamin

Chaplin, David; Job, Christine; Levine, Justin; Yanes, Aleida

Christie, Alexis; Lorentz, Garrett; Oostendorp, Rachel

Clark, Tee; Magrisso, Joseph; Parolie, Matt

DeLong, Seth; Malik, Omar; Perez, Yuri

Diambois, Alexa; Mansen, Robert; Preston, Richard

Ferraro, James; Menzies, Graham; Ramsaran, Jerome

Fine, Joel; Morgan, Julie; Rea, Kyle

Forman, Jeff; Nuñez, Carlos; Robinson, Tricia

Section E1

Boos, Eric; Delsontro, Michael; France-Ramirez, Morgan; Uribe, Alex

Breslin, William; Duaban, Saranicole; Garrett, Julia; Velarde, Victor

Brown, Brittany; Efford, Richard; Gastin, Jeremy; Villarosa, Michael

Bryan, Shayna; Evans, Jeremy; Gavelek, Amanda; Vouglitois, Dana

Caliendo, Courtney; Feigenbaum, Joel;Goldbaum, Candice; Webner, Jamie

Ceavers, Nicholas; Foley, Ryan; Haber, Andrea; Widmer, Greg

Hody, Jocelin; Newman, Chris; Schnedar, Jeff

Kadosh, Yediel; Page, Autumn; Shokoohi, Persia

Kurland, Matt; Pandolfi, Jodi; Siegel, Josh

Lamet, Jonathan; Perez, Jason; Smith, Jacqueline

Liu, Tian; Plager, Josh; Stern, Joshua

Mastrucci, Katie; Rattner, Alex; Sulem, Mike

Nathans, Shelby; Rigby, Brett; Swan, Trent

Navarrete, Ana-Sofia; Ryan, Mike; Timonere, Cole

Nealon, Liana; Sauvé, Max; Torgman, Annabelle

(C) Assignment #2Section C1Team Assignments

(Coordinator in Bold)

IM1

Attorneys for Defendant

Amadi, Jobe ;

Levine, Justin

Anise, Anthony;

Johns, Ross

Baker-Bradley, Natasha;

Johnson, Shanelle

Bell, Brian;

Jordan, Ashley

Cabrera, Richard;

Jove, Scott

Catania, Susie;

Kottke, Josh

Chaplin, David;

Kugbei, Sam

Christie, Alexis;

Nuñez, Carlos;

Rea, Kyle

Clark, Tee;

Lorentz, Garrett;

Robinson, Tricia

DeLong, Seth;

Magrisso, Joseph;

Oostendorp, Rachel

Diambois, Alexa;

Malik, Omar;

Parolie, Matt

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Foster, Brandon;

Yanes, Aleida

Gavalier, Cody;

Samra, Arsh

Green, Abel;

Saunders, Chris

Habib, Payam;

Schlosser, Jimmy

Hawks, Tiffany;

Shir, Jeremy

Ionescu, Andreea;

Sleiman, Kamal

Job, Christine;

Taormina, Benjamin

Ferraro, James;

Mansen, Robert;

Perez, Yuri

Fine, Joel;

Menzies, Graham;

Preston, Richard

Forman, Jeff;

Morgan, Julie;

Ramsaran, Jerome

IM1

(D) Assignment #2Section E1Team Assignments

(Coordinator in Bold)

IM1

Attorneys for Defendant

Boos, Eric;

Widmer, Greg

Breslin, William;

Uribe, Alex

Brown, Brittany;

Velarde, Victor

Bryan, Shayna;

Villarosa, Michael

Caliendo, Courtney;

Vouglitois, Dana

Ceavers, Nicholas;

Webner, Jamie

Hody, Jocelin;

Sauvé, Max;

Timonere, Cole

Kadosh, Yediel;

Newman, Chris;

Torgman, Annabelle

Kurland, Matt;

Page, Autumn;

Schnedar, Jeff

Lamet, Jonathan;

Pandolfi, Jodi;

Shokoohi, Persia

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Delsontro, Michael;

Haber, Andrea

Duaban, Saranicole;

France-Ramirez, Morgan

Efford, Richard;

Garrett, Julia

Evans, Jeremy;

Gastin, Jeremy

Feigenbaum, Joel;

Gavelek, Amanda

Foley, Ryan;

Goldbaum, Candice

Liu, Tian;

Perez, Jason;

Siegel, Josh

Mastrucci, Katie;

Plager, Josh;

Smith, Jacqueline

Nathans, Shelby;

Rattner, Alex;

Stern, Joshua

Navarrete, Ana-Sofia;

Rigby, Brett;
Sulem, Mike

Nealon, Liana;

Ryan, Mike;

Swan, Trent

IM1