Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Final Examination
December 10 ,1998
1. This is an open book exam. You may use any materials or notes used in our
class. You may not refer to cases, articles, etc. that were not used in class.
2. You will have eight hours, inclusive of travel time, to complete the exam. The
exam is designed, however, to be completed in three to four hours. Feel free
to use the extra hours as you wish.
3. The exam consists of two Parts. In grading the exam, I will treat each Part as
roughly equal in weight. The numbered questions within each part will be
accorded roughly equal weight, although they are obviously interrelated and
will be graded as such. In other words, don’t worry if your answer to one
numbered question is longer or shorter than another. Just make sure that you
have answered ail the questions in each Part.
5. If you really truly cannot type, or lack access to a word processor, then you
may use a bluebook. Please write on only one side of each bluebook page, put
your exam number on each bluebook, and remember to skip lines. The rough
5,200 word limit still applies.
6. Read each question carefully and think before you write. Please do not feel
obliged to make use of the 12 page maximum in formulating your
answers. Precision and imagination, rather than volume, is what counts.
In part, Hardsville’s racial isolation is the result of white flight and the limited
economic means at the disposal of the black community. It is also well-documented,
however, that Hardsville’s racial isolation arose in part due to decisions by a white-
controlled city government prior to the seventies that were purposely discriminatory.
Public housing was concentrated in the area, and the courts enforced restrictive covenants
for many years. For years after blacks moved into the area, Hardsville did not receive its
fair share of city services and school dollars. Roads and public transportation lines were
routed to inhibit easy access between Hardsville and the rest of the city. Indeed, only one
main transportation artery exists between Hardsville and the city’s center -- the six-lane
Division Parkway, which runs east-west from one end of the city to the other, and carries
not only vehicular traffic, but the city’s primary east-west bus line.
Recently, the economy of New Prosperity has been on the rebound, driven largely
by a surge in the service sector. A major symbol of that economic resurgence is the New
Prosperity Mall, a state-of-the-art shopping complex built on the site of a former steel
plant, on the north side of Division Parkway and lying about half-way between Hardsville
and the more prosperous east side of town. With over a hundred stores and restaurants,
an indoor garden and multiplex theater, the mall has become a regional attraction,
bringing millions of dollars of business into the city, providing numerous retail jobs to
city residents, and fattening the city’s tax base.
The Pleasant Administration has garnered much of the credit for the mall’s
success, since it was the Administration that put together the public-private partnership
that got the project off the ground. To jump start the development, the city purchased the
site five years ago and made it development-ready through the issuance of a general
obligation bond, to be paid back out of the city’s tax revenues over twenty-five years.
Then, after it was unable to sell the property to a developer outright because of the
Under the terms of the agreement, Mogul was to maintain almost complete
control over management and day-to-day operations of the mall during the initial two year
period, subject only to a set of provisions contained in all contracts with the city that,
inter alia, prohibited Mogul from discriminating on the basis of race with respect to the
various operations of the mall (i.e. employment decisions, the leasing of space within the
mall, the treatment of persons patronizing the mall, the selection of contractors for
janitorial and security services, the selection of suppliers, and so on). Also under the
terms of the agreement, Mogul was required to include these anti-discrimination
provisions in all of its sub-leases. Should Mogul choose to exercise its option to purchase
the mail from the city, it would obviously no longer be subject to these lease terms, but
would be subject to all city ordinances regulating businesses and property ownership,
including a civil rights ordinance that prohibits all businesses within the city from
discriminating on the basis of race, gender, etc. in terms essentially identical to those
contained in the lease between Mogul and the city.
By the end of the mall’s first two years, the results of the project exceeded the
city’s most optimistic expectations. As a result of the mall’s success, Mogul exercised its
option to buy, has owned and operated the mall free and clear (and very profitably) for the
past year, and anticipates healthy profits for the foreseeable future. The city has recouped
its development costs, and is servicing its general obligation bond out of the sale
proceeds, rather than tax revenue; it has also not had any involvement whatsoever in the
project (beyond providing basic services such as fire and police protection) since the sale
to Mogul. Everybody seems just thrilled with this win-win situation.
First, the complaint alleges that in designing the mall, the city, in concert with
Mogul, deliberately failed to provide any safe and convenient access route for Hardsville
residents who seek to travel by bus to the mall, and that the city and Mogul did so
because they wanted to limit the number of blacks generally, and poor blacks in
particular, who would patronize the mall. In support of this allegation, plaintiffs point out
Not only does the lack of adequate access make it extremely inconvenient for
even able-bodied passengers to visit the mall by bus (and almost impossible for the
elderly and parents with small children to do so), but the lack of ready access to the mall
from the bus-stop is also dangerous: already, at least one Hardsville teen has been killed
by an on-coming car as she tried to race directly from the bus stop to the mail across the
highway. Moreover, the plaintiffs allege that, while it is true that whites traveling from
the east side of the city by bus theoretically suffer the same access problems - at least on
their way home from the mall - as do blacks coming from Hardsville, statistics show that
blacks in Hardsville are eight times more likely to travel by bus than are whites, and that
the city was aware of these statistics when it and Mogul designed the mall as they did.
The complaint’s second, related count alleges that since the mall opened, the city,
in concert with Mogul and its sub-lessees, has systematically harassed and intimidated
black shoppers so as to discourage their presence in the mall. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that, both before and after the city’s sale of the Mall to Mogul, a) mall
security guards hired by Mogul have been under instructions to stand near any
congregation of black teenagers (but not white teenagers) in an effort to intimidate them
and “move them along;” b) with the knowledge and encouragement of Mogul, undercover
security guards and electronic surveillance operators employed by a number of individual
stores in the mall systematically monitor and follow black customers as they shop, but do
not subject white shoppers to similar treatment; c) on at least five occasions since the sale
of the mall to Mogul, and on at least five occasion during the period that the city still
owned the mall, black shoppers (but no white shoppers) have been falsely detained by
Mogul security guards for shoplifting; and d) such discriminatory activity has occurred
with the city’s knowledge and encouragement.
The lawsuit is still in the preliminary discovery stages, and while no conclusive
evidence of wrongdoing has surfaced on the part of either Mogul or the city, some
troubling facts have already emerged:
First, with respect to the bus stop allegation, it is clear that the city made
conscious decisions not to build a pedestrian overpass from the existing bus stop to the
mall, move the existing bus stop closer to the crosswalk, or route buses into the mall.
The city planners involved in the process state that the reasons for these decisions were
entirely non-discriminatory - an overpass would have required the purchase of land
currently owned and operated by homeowners, and hence added significantly to project
costs; moving the bus stop would have constituted a traffic hazard; and routing a bus
through the mall would have impracticably lengthened travel times on the bus for
Hardsville residents traveling to and from the city center.
Assume all the facts obtained through discovery thus far are true. Assume further
that some, if not all, of Mogul’s executives tolerated -- and perhaps even
encouraged - the differential treatment of black customers in the mall by their
security guards or their lessees/sub-lessees, but that the record is not clear on
whether a) they did so on the basis of active animus towards blacks, b) an interest
in pandering to white customers who they thought might be scared off by the
presence of blacks at the mall, c) a genuine belief, based on their readings of the
statistical data, that blacks were more likely to engage in disruptive or criminal
behavior; or d) or some combination of motives. What is the likelihood that the
city will be held liable for violating the constitutional rights of blacks under the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In answering this
question, please argue both sides of the issue and offer you considered conclusion
on the ultimate outcome. Also, please be sure consider separately each of the two
counts presented in the complaint (the bus stop count and the harassment count).
Eight years ago, Tony and Cleo married and settled in the State of Nirvana, a state
in the United States. For over five years, the couple tried to have a child without medical
intervention, but were unsuccessful. Doctors are uncertain as to why the couple failed to
conceive in the traditional manner: Tony’s sperm count is normal, and although Cleo is
thirty-nine, and hence near the end of her childbearing years, her reproductive system
seems normal as well.
Two years ago, Tony and Cleo decided to try invitro fertilization or IVF - a
procedure that required a) Cleo to undergo a month long regiment of shots and orally
administered fertility drugs (with some uncomfortable side-effects) to increase the
production of harvestable eggs; b) the removal of the eggs from Cleo in a brief but
The first time Tony and Cleo tried the procedure, only four eggs fertilized, and
although all of them were inserted into Cleo’s uterus, none of them “caught” on the
uterine lining and resulted in pregnancy. The second time out, the doctors successfully
fertilized eight eggs, and again introduced four into Cleo, freezing the other four.
Unfortunately, the procedure again was unsuccessful.
The financial and emotional strains of these failed attempts to conceive a child’
finally proved too great for the couple’s marriage to bear. Six months after the second
IVF attempt, Tony and Cleo agreed, under relatively amicable terms, that they had grown
distant from each other, and should get divorced.
After the divorce was finalized, Tony moved to another state, got a new job, and
entered into a serious relationship with another woman. In fact, he had not seen or
spoken to Cleo for close to a year when he received a letter from her. In the letter, Cleo
indicated her intent to use some of her divorce settlement money to try IVF one last time,
using the four eggs (fertilized by Tony’s sperm) that remain frozen in the Nirvana fertility
lab. Cleo pointed out that she is not currently in a relationship with a man, and because
she is nearing menopause, these eggs may represent best chance at getting pregnant,
particularly since she has neither the desire or financial resources to start the IVF process
all over with an anonymous sperm donor. She concluded the letter by saying that she
wished for Tony’s blessing, but was determined to go ahead with her plan, with or
without his agreement.
Tony hires your law firm to advise him on his rights, and to find a way for him to
have the four frozen embryos destroyed. After discussions with Tony, the partner
assigned to the case discovers that there is a Nirvana state statute which extensively
regulates infertility clinics. One of the provisions in this statute states the following:
“In the event that a dispute arises between that person providing the eggs and that
person providing the sperm regarding the disposition of frozen, fertilized eggs,
and that dispute cannot be resolved by reference either to a written or oral contract
or by clear and convincing evidence of the parties’ intentions at the time the eggs
were fertilized, then the fertilized eggs in question shall be destroyed, unless the
egg donor desires to-have the fertilized egg implanted in her womb in an attempt
to become pregnant, in which case such a-decision on the part of the egg donor
shall be controlling.” (Italics added)
The legislative history offers three rationales for the provision, rationales which
the state claims “carefully balance the competing interests involved.” First, the state
maintains that the provision serves the state’s “abiding interest in promoting life” by
permitting women to chose to attempt a pregnancy using their fertilized eggs in the
absence of an agreement between the parties and in the face of the male sperm donor’s
objections. Second, the state claims that the provision recognizes the fact that women,
for both biological and sociological reasons, are far more likely to be impacted by
decisions regarding reproduction, and that it is therefore appropriate, absent an agreement
between the parties, to resolve any dispute regarding the disposition of eggs in favor of
the woman. Finally, the state claims that where the woman does not wish to be implanted
with the eggs in question, a rule that the eggs should be destroyed absent an agreement
between the parties serves the state’s interest in discouraging commerce in frozen
embryos - commerce which, according to the state, both “debases the value in human
life” and may lead to a wide range of custody disputes that are ultimately harmful to
children produced through the IVF process.
You are an associate at the law firm Tony has hired. The partner in charge of the
case asks you to write a brief memo on the following two questions:
END OF EXAMINATION