译者 | 刘燕霖  中国人民大学 PPE
一审 | 晏世伟  北京大学 LL.B.
二审 | 孙济民  上海交通大学 法律硕士
编辑 | 玦   珮   范德堡大学 LL.M.
责编 | 陈宣颖   西南政法大学本科
1
Inside the Agency Class Action 
行政机构的集体诉讼（行政法、民事诉讼程序）
作者：Michael Sant'Ambrogio & 
Adam S. Zimmerman
Federal agencies in the United States hear almost twice as many cases each year as all the federal courts. But agencies routinely avoid using tools that courts rely on to efficiently resolve large groups of claims: class actions and other complex litigation procedures. As a result, across the administrative state, the number of claims languishing on agency dockets has produced crippling backlogs, arbitrary outcomes, and new barriers to justice.
联邦行政机构每年听审的案件数量几乎是所有联邦法院的两倍。但行政机构通常避免使用法院赖以有效解决大量诉讼案件的工具：集体诉讼和其他复杂的诉讼程序。因此，在整个行政领域中，案件记录簿上的大量诉请已经造成了严重的案件积压和众多不够严谨的判决结果，也为司法正义的实现造成了新的障碍。
A handful of federal administrative programs, however, have quietly bucked this trend. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has created an administrative class action procedure, modeled after Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to resolve “pattern and practice” claims of discrimination by federal employees before administrative judges. Similarly, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has used “Omnibus Proceedings” resembling federal multidistrict litigation to pool common claims regarding vaccine injuries. And the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals—facing a backlog of hundreds of thousands of claims—recently instituted a new “Statistical Sampling Initiative,” which will resolve hundreds of common medical claims at a time by statistically extrapolating the results of a few hearing outcomes.
然而，少数联邦行政机构已经在逐渐改变这一趋势。平等就业机会委员会仿照《联邦民事诉讼规则》第23条创建了一个行政机构集体诉讼程序，用于在行政法官面前解决联邦雇员遭遇“模式和实践”（pattern and practice）歧视时的索赔问题。同样，美国国家疫苗损害补偿计划（VICP）也采用了类似于跨地区诉讼的“综合程序”（Omnibus Proceedings）来集中处理有关疫苗伤害的共同索赔。目前已积压数十万起索赔案件的医疗保险听证会和上诉办公室最近制定了一项新的“统计抽样倡议”，提出可以通过对一些听证结果进行统计推断，一次性解决上百件普通的医疗索赔案。
This Article is the first to map agencies’ nascent efforts to use class actions and other complex procedures in their own hearings. Relying on unusual access to over forty agencies—including agency policymakers, staff, and adjudicators—we take a unique look “inside” administrative tribunals that use mass adjudication in areas as diverse as employment discrimination, mass torts, and health care. In so doing, we unearth broader lessons about what aggregation procedures mean for policymaking, enforcement, and adjudication. Even as some fear that collective procedures may stretch the limits of adjudication, our study supports a very different conclusion: group procedures can form an integral part of public regulation and the adjudicatory process itself.
本文是首篇介绍行政机构在听证会上使用集体诉讼和其他复杂程序的情况的文章。通过与40多个行政机构中的政策制定者、普通工作人员和审判员等人的非常规接触，我们对行政法庭的“内部”进行了独到的观察，这些法庭已经开始在就业歧视、大规模侵权和医疗保健等不同领域使用大批量裁决的方式处理案件。在此过程中，我们发现集体程序的经验也能更广泛地适用于政策制定、执行和裁决等方面。即使有些人会担心集体程序会过分扩大裁决发生效力的范围，我们的研究仍然倾向于支持一个与之不同的结论：集体诉讼程序可以成为公共监管和裁决过程的一个合理组成部分。
2
Cops and Pleas: Police Officers’ Influence on Plea Bargaining
警察与认罪:警察对辩诉交易的影响
（刑法、刑事诉讼法）
作者：Jonathan Abel
Police officers play an important, though little-understood, role in plea bargaining. This Essay examines the many ways in which prosecutors and police officers consult, collaborate, and clash with each other over plea bargaining. Using original interviews with criminal justice officials from around the country, this Essay explores the mechanisms of police involvement in plea negotiations and the implications of this involvement for both plea bargaining and policing. Ultimately, police influence in the arena of plea bargaining—long thought the exclusive domain of prosecutors—calls into question basic assumptions about who controls the prosecution team.
警察在辩诉交易中发挥着重要的作用，尽管很少有人意识到这一点。本文研究了检方和警察在辩诉交易中相互协商、合作和发生冲突的多种情况。通过分析对全国各地刑事司法官员的采访所获的一手资料，本文探讨了警察参与辩诉交易的机制以及这种参与对辩诉交易和警务的影响。最终，警察对辩诉交易领域产生的影响——长期以来被认为是起诉方的“特权”——使人们对谁是检方团队实际控制者的基本假设产生了怀疑。
3
Ban the Address: Combating Employment Discrimination Against the Homeless 
“禁止地址”运动:打击对无家可归者的就业歧视
（反歧视法、劳动与雇佣法）
作者：Sarah Golabek-Goldman

This Note presents a study of obstacles to employment faced by homeless job applicants and offers potential solutions. Homeless job applicants confront discrimination when they provide the address of a shelter or do not have an address to provide on applications. Advocates should seek to protect homeless job applicants by encouraging businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies to provide homeless applicants with addresses or P.O. boxes. Most significantly, the proposed “Ban the Address” campaign would discourage employers from inquiring about an applicant’s address or residency history until after granting a provisional offer of employment. Advocacy efforts such as these can serve as a foundation for successful legal claims under new homeless person’s bills of rights, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This Note explains why requesting residency information might be deemed illegal under both state and federal causes of action. A combination of both legal and nonlegal tactics has the best chance of permitting homeless job applicants to obtain employment and to regain self-sufficiency.
本文对无家可归者所面临的就业障碍进行了研究，并提出了可能的解决方案。当无家可归的求职者在申请表中填写收容中心的地址或者不填写任何住址时，他们就会面临歧视。“禁止地址”（Ban the Address）运动的支持者应当设法保护无家可归的求职者，鼓励企业、非营利组织和政府机构向无家可归者提供地址或邮政信箱。最重要的是，雇主在确认是否给予申请者工作机会之前，他们将被禁止询问申请人的地址或居住历史。诸如此类的支持政策可以作为根据新的保护无家可归者的权利法案、《民权法案》第七章和《美国残疾人法》成功提出索赔的政策基础。本文进一步解释了为什么根据州和联邦的诉讼原因规定，要求提供居住信息可能被视为违法。法律和非法律策略的结合是允许无家可归的求职者获得工作机会并重新实现经济独立的最好方案。
继续阅读
阅读原文