University of Baltimore Law Review

Gold Medals & Tainted Burgers: The Dope on Olympic Doping

*Alex Robinson

I. Introduction

The 2024 Summer Olympics performance may be firmly in the public’s rearview mirror, but the United States is not done with tension-filled showdowns on the international stage.[1] The 2021 and 2024 Summer Olympics featured dozens of Chinese swimmers who tested positive for banned substances but were ultimately cleared to compete by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) under suspicious circumstances.[2] As a result, the swimmers played a crucial role in China’s tie with the United States for the most gold medals in Paris.[3] Frustrated by WADA’s decisions to clear the swimmers and the acquiescence of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Congress[4] and the Department of Justice (DOJ) took action.[5]

Disability Accommodations: Only Workin’ 9–5?

*Melissa Bosley

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that employers make “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual.”[1] At times, qualified individuals with disabilities may find physically commuting to the job site difficult. For example, an employee with a vision-distorting condition may require magnifying equipment to successfully complete her job functions,[2] yet even when the employer provides her magnifying equipment, the employee still must commute to work.[3] The employee cannot drive herself to work because her vision is distorted and her driving would be unsafe.[4] In a world after the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when remote work became normalized and return-to-office mandates made headline news, employees with disabilities face a new question: does the employer have to make accommodations for an employee’s commute to work?[5]

What the Memphis Seven Decision Means for Starbucks Workers

*Violet Sovine

Starbucks Workers United[1] and the Starbucks Corporation announced in February 2024 that they would hold collective bargaining sessions after failing to begin negotiations for a little over three years.[2] Starbucks has previously shown extreme hostility to the unionization of its stores, causing Starbucks Workers United to file 700 unfair labor practice (ULP) charges over three years with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).[3] Averaging around 230 unfair labor practice charges per year, filings against Starbucks constituted one percent of all cases filed with the NLRB in 2023.[4] In 2023, the NLRB “also reported a 36 percent increase in its backlog of pending cases at the end of the year.”[5] One of the 700 charges related to seven union organizers terminated by a Starbucks location in Memphis, Tennessee.[6]

Bones of Contention: Reassessing Consumer Expectations in Food Liability Cases

*Shekinah Tony-Oyeleye

I. Introduction

A recent Ohio Supreme Court decision threatens to upend the landscape of food liability law.[1] The court’s ruling, that a restaurant was not negligent for serving a bone in a “boneless” chicken wing, highlights the tension between consumer expectations and the realities of food preparation and service.[2] The ruling raises crucial questions about the future of food liability law and its implications for both consumers and the food industry. Should consumers bear the burden of anticipating potential hazards in their food, even when product labeling suggests otherwise? Or should food producers be held to a higher standard of care, particularly in an era of increased food processing and marketing?[3]

Circuits Split on Interpreting Second Amendment’s History and Tradition Standard

*Jacob Rabinovich

I. Introduction

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that alleged domestic abusers may be disarmed if the court considers them a credible threat against another person’s physical safety.[1] The Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed the federal government’s authority to restrict firearm possession under the Bruen standard that all firearm regulations must be consistent with the United States’ history and tradition of firearm regulation.[2] The 2024 decision opened the door for the federal circuits to begin interpreting Second Amendment regulations as they see fit, with particular regard to whether nonviolent felons could possess firearms.[3]