Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Conventional wisdom suggests that punitive damages are growing out of control. To stop judges and juries from awarding blockbuster punitive damages, a number of states have passed caps which set a ceiling on the amount of punitives. In principle, if judges and juries wish to circumvent such caps, they could simply increase the amount of compensatory damages awarded. To investigate this possibility, we examine data from the Civil Justice Survey performed by the National Center for State Courts and demonstrate, in a triple differences framework, that punitive damage caps lead to a statistically significant increase in compensatory damage awards. This effect is robust to using various contemporaneous within-state counterfactual controls. These results suggest that caps alone are a poor way to constrain damage awards.

Publication Type: Presentation Proposal
Abstract: It’s all about using school facilities and grounds, the neighborhood, and the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a context for learning. Find out how Maryland schools model environmental practices, work with partners to enhance student learning, and gain recognition as a “Maryland Green School”.

Publication Type: Traditional Presentation
Abstract: The Maryland Association for Environmental and Outdoor Education recognizes schools that demonstrate excellence in environmental education through its model Green School Awards Program. Strict criteria lead to environmental improvements through community partnerships and enhanced learning for students.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Collateral benefits that personal injury plaintiffs receive due to their injuries are deductible from damages awards with the exception of private insurance benefits and charitable gifts. Past welfare benefits are regarded as income replacement and hence collateral benefits. Past welfare benefits are deducted from damages for past impaired working capacity. Deductibility is not conditional upon existence of recoupment schemes to return benefits to the collateral source. The private insurance exception has mostly been relevant in relation to employment benefits. Deductibility of welfare benefits therefore has a disproportionate effect on those who are unable to or have limited opportunities to engage in paid work and/or to work in positions with employment benefits akin to private insurance. Such persons are more likely to have received income assistance in the past. Given the correlation between marginality and socio-economic status, this would potentially affect members of racialized groups, women (especially lone parents) and persons living with disabilities. Deductibility of past welfare benefits will likely have a detrimental effect on victims of particular torts such as sexual abuse and historical/institutional abuses and whose marginality status – race, mental and physical disabilities, sex, etc. – may have contributed to their victimization. There are also some practical difficulties associated with deductibility that undermines its fairness, especially in dealing with already marginalized claimants. Ultimately, deductibility means that defendants, or more appropriately, their insurers pay less for the victimization of marginalized people. This perpetuates the undervaluation of the lives of marginalized people and also contributes to their vulnerability in society.

Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: An increasing amount of research has been dedicated to studying university-industry relations (UIRs). Researchers have studied the impacts of UIRs on the integrity of university research. However, while studies have examined the perceptions and actions of university administration and industry leaders on the maintenance of UIRs, very little attention has been devoted to the perceptions and actions of women faculty. Using survey data collected from 946 professors in colleges of agriculture and life sciences at the nation’s land-grant universities and applying hierarchical linear analyses, we draw upon theories of feminist epistemology and academic capitalism to examine how female faculty in different academic departments perceive university-industry linkages compared to their male colleagues. In addition, we examine gender differences in individual-level ties to private industry. Results suggest that the increase in female faculty in the agricultural and life sciences is a potentially important, albeit often ignored, protective factor against UIRs. However, for departments with the strongest ties to industry, gender does not seem to be a statistically significant predictor of UIRs. These findings illustrate the need for researchers, policymakers, and others interested in understanding the consequences and outcomes of UIRs to pursue more in-depth investigations of the potential role that gender plays in an effort to address the future of UIRs.