GraduatePrograms.com, an online graduate guide, polled over 10,000 former and current law school students to find out which US schools offer the best networking opportunities.
Participants rated programs on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the strongest. The students rated the faculty, peer, and alumni networks available to them while they were in school, and after they graduated. The scores were averaged and ranked to determine the programs with the best networking opportunities.
The best law schools for networking based based on the poll are:
School Location Quality of Network
Univ of Florida Gainesville Fl 9.90
Yale Univ New Haven Ct 9.87
Stanford Univ Stanford, Ca 9.83
Univ of Notre Dame Notre Dame In 9.50
Northwestern Univ Evanston Il 9.42
Univ of Calif Berkeley Ca 9.28
Univ of Houston Houston Tx 9.25
Harvard Univ Cambridge Ma 9.21
Univ of Southern Ca Los Angeles Ca 9.20
Univ of Colorado Boulder, Co 9.14
Florida State Univ Tallahassee Fl 9.12
Boston College Boston Ma 9.10
The Univ of Chicago Chicago Il 9.09
New York University New York, Ny 9.08
Univ of Michigan Ann Arbor, Mi 9.06
Wake Forest Univ Winston-Salem Nc 9.00
Washington and Lee Lexington Va 8.93
Duke Univ Durham Nc 8.91
Columbia Univ New York, Ny 8.90
Univ of Virginia Charlottesville Va 8.87
Southern Methodist Univ Dallas Tx 8.83
Thomas Jefferson San Diego Ca 8.72
Univ of North Carolina Chapel Hill Nc 8.70
The University of Texas Austin Tx 8.50
Rutgers University Newark,Nj 8.45
The Washington State Attorney General (AG) recently filed an action in state court against a student loan debt adjustment firm and its individual principal alleging that the firm charged illegal fees and failed to provide required disclosures in violation of the state’s Debt Adjusting Act (DAA) and Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
The lawsuit illustrates the need for firms providing student debt relief services to ensure that their fees, documentation, and other practices comply with applicable federal and state law.
The Washington AG’s action is another example of recent aggressive enforcement activity by regulators targeting the student debt relief industry. In January 2014, a student protection unit was established within New York’s Department of Financial Services to serve as a consumer watchdog for student borrowers. The unit has served subpoenas on student debt relief providers that allegedly charged borrowers high enrollment fees for services that were available free of charge through the U.S. Department of Education. Two student debt companies alleged to have engaged in similar conduct were the targets of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforcement actions, one of which was filed jointly with the Florida AG.
See also, a recent blog on this site addressing debt servicers being terminated.
The Washington State AG alleges in the complaint that the DAA violations constitute unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the CPA. Relying on the DAA’s remedy provisions, the AG seeks an order requiring the firm to return all amounts obtained in violation of the DAA and CPA and pay a civil penalty of $2,000 for each CPA violation. (The AG alleges that the firm committed at least 144 violations, consisting of 88 consumers who paid an unlawful initial fee and 56 consumers who paid unlawful monthly fees.)
Sections by John L. Culhane, Jr., John Grugan, Alan S. Kaplinsky, Christopher J. Willis
This past week, in the case of Young v. UPS, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may be able to prove unlawful failure to accommodate a pregnancy-related condition through evidence that other non-pregnant employees were provided with the requested accommodation.
The Supreme Court held that an individual may establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination by “showing actions taken by the employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on a discriminatory criterion.” The employee needs only to show:(1) she was pregnant at the relevant time; (2) her employer did not accommodate her; and (3) her employer did accommodate others who are similar only “in their ability or inability to work.”
Once the plaintiff meets the initial burden of establishing her prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying the requested accommodation. If an employer is able to satisfy its burden of articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the final burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that reason to be pretextual. The burden may be met if the employee can point to evidence that the employer’s policies “impose a significant burden on pregnant workers, and that the employer’s ‘legitimate, non-discriminatory’ reasons are not sufficiently strong to justify the burden, but rather – when considered along with the burden imposed – give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.”
The Supreme Court’s decision lowers the burden for plaintiffs and sets a higher burden for employers to overcome. It will be substantially easier for plaintiffs to succeed in pregnancy discrimination and accommodation claims.
All Successful Entrepreneurs Have This Quality http://zite.to/1ajY6yt via @zite