Students at the University of Michigan Law School are able to submit Notes for consideration for publication in the Michigan Law Review. The Res Gestae will be interviewing student authors whose Notes will be published in Vol. 123 of the Michigan Law Review to ask them about their experiences writing and submitting Notes.
To start, can you tell me about your professional experience in law school so far? What did you do your 1L/2L summers?
I spent both of my summers at a firm. My 1L summer I was at Faegre Drinker in Indianapolis, and then my 2L summer I was at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C. I have nothing but positive things to say about the both of them. Both are really great firms with really great people, which is the most important thing. To me, it’s all about who you’re working with.
What is your plan after graduation?
I will be back at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C. for a year, and then I will be clerking for a year. I’ll be clerking for Judge Dominic W. Lanza on the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Turns out Judge Lanza is actually good friends with Professor J.J. Prescott who ended up being my research supervisor for my MLR Note.
Do you have any advice for those who are interested in clerking?
Just be willing to take the step to apply. I hear a lot of students talk about being interested in clerking but don’t apply because they don’t feel like they are the perfect candidate. From my understanding and experience, different judges are looking for different things; there is no harm in applying, and the worst thing they can tell you is “no.”
Let’s talk a bit about your Note you wrote for Michigan Law Review this year. Can you tell me about it?
For my Note, I focused on sheltered workshops. Sheltered workshops are specific workplaces in the United States where individuals with certain qualifying disabilities can be paid less than the minimum wage. Sheltered workshops were originally developed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) during the Roosevelt administration. The idea back then was essentially, “if we don’t let employers pay sub-minimum wages, no one is going to hire individuals with disabilities.” Since then, as you can imagine, this has caused a lot of issues for those with disabilities who are trying to find better employment opportunities, as well as better opportunities in general. Better healthcare is often connected with better jobs, etc.
There is a current policy under Lane v. Kitzhaber, a District of Oregon case, that essentially requires employers to give individuals with disabilities the choice to either go into a sheltered workshop or go into integrated employment. Integrated employment is employment where individuals with disabilities are up for the same jobs as those without disabilities. Lane v. Kitzhaber has done a lot of amazing things for individuals with disabilities, it has helped provide wonderful job opportunities for those who may not have had those opportunities otherwise; not due to being underqualified, but due to the systemic barriers that would have prevented these individuals from even hearing about the job opportunities. The problem with Lane v. Kitzhaber, though, is that there are still a lot of systemic barriers in place that prevent people, even when they, in theory, have the choice to choose an integrated employment opportunity, from actually going into those integrated employment opportunities. There are some pretty severe economic barriers along with psychological barriers and, most substantially, there are sociological barriers. It’s tough for employers to hear that they could be paying $1/hour, but instead are paying the state minimum wage, which reaches $15/hour in some states. The current policy doesn’t give individuals with disabilities a real fighting chance.
My Note talks through a proposed revision to the Lane v. Kitzhaber standard where individuals with disabilities would receive counseling and encouragement to find integrated employment opportunities. My Note gets into exactly what that looks like. To provide a brief overview, I discuss numerous sociological studies that show that once individuals with disabilities are shown what integrated employment would actually look like, they are able to actually find those opportunities better. Additionally, once employers are shown what an integrated workplace looks like, they are able to see how their workplace could be benefited. After this, employers are more amenable to integrated workplace opportunities. By slightly moving the bar a bit higher, we can not only better encourage disability employment, but we can also better encourage compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and with the Attorney General’s standards pursuant to the ADA, which essentially says that individuals with disabilities have to actually be given an opportunity to work in the most integrated setting possible.
Overall, Lane v. Kitzhaber did move us closer to that integration mandate of the Attorney General, but a broader/more active standard is necessary to actually fulfil that integration mandate.
What motivated/inspired you to write this Note?
I worked for a policy research firm during undergrad that counseled state governments. I was able to work on the Disability Employment team where I was able to see a lot of disability employment policies and research a lot of really cool things. That is where I came across sheltered workshop policy. After a couple years in law school and being able to better understand the legal ramifications, I was better equipped to dive deeper into the research.
Can you tell me about the process behind getting your Note published?
I was able to work with Professor J.J. Prescott to get my first draft out. I chatted through my idea with him, he gave me a couple of pointers on which direction to go, and then from there it was just doing a little bit of research each week. I had enough research to write my first draft over winter break and I, admittedly, just sat down over the course of about a week and a half and every day just wrote. After that it was revisions until I was able to get notes from Professor Prescott. I am so grateful for the time and effort Professor Prescott put in to help me complete it. I submitted it and was fortunate enough to be chosen.
Can you talk a bit about how you managed to do this while still being a full-time law student?
I am happy I completed my Note while still being a student. The advantage of doing it while being a student is that although you do have to keep up with your readings/classes, you don’t have to worry about a work schedule. As a student, I think you have a bit more flexibility. It’s not often that you’re able to take a full day off work, whereas I was able to have a break in between classes and take that day to work on my Note. Another advantage is that as students, we are in a place where you can write about anything you want, and there are people that are willing to publish it. Michigan Law has a ton of journals that focus on a ton of different subjects, that absolutely love to publish Notes and have really wonderful Notes offices that are there to help.
Do you have any advice for those who are interested in writing a Note?
My advice is to just start! Once you start your research you are continuously diving into more and more stuff, which gets more and more interesting and exciting. Additionally, you are able to get credit for the research and a lot of professors love to be involved in that. Having a nothing ventured, nothing gained mentality was really important for me.
To close out, for all of our current and future law students, what are Michigan Laws must-take classes?
- Evidence with Professor Niehoff;
- Federal Courts with Professor Litman; and
- Professor Walker’s Administrative Law Seminar
Editor-at-Large Karissa Rendon can be reached at rendonk@umich.edu.
