How to Write an Outline for a Law School Exam Hypothetical Property (B1) University of Miami School of Law Fall 2014 Professor Schnably This slideshow is designed to help give you an idea of how to write an answer to a law school fact hypothetical. It uses a hypothetical developed by Professor Marc Fajer.

The Practice Question Trisha owns a large strawberry farm in Harmony, a U.S. state that follows State v. Shack. For several weeks each spring, Trisha hires migrant workers (MWs) to pick strawberries. The MWs, many of whom speak little or no English, live in cabins on her land during their employment. Agricultural Management Initiative of Texas (AMIT) is a joint venture of several dozen large Texan farms. It sends representatives outside Texas to farms where MWs are employed to provide information about available employment in Texas and, where possible, to sign workers up for these future jobs. AMIT representatives speak several languages and only provide information regarding jobs that begin at least one week after the current job is expected to end. The farms they represent all provide transportation for the MWs to get to the Texan jobs. AMIT representatives are paid a base salary and get commissions for each MW they sign who completes a job in Texas. Although they have not been specifically invited by the MWs working for Trisha, the AMIT representatives would like to go onto her farm to speak to the MWs while they are staying there. Trisha would like to exclude the AMIT representatives. What arguments could AMIT present for access under State v. Shack? What arguments could Trisha present for denying access under State v. Shack? Before you view the rest of the slideshow, make sure you have attempted to write an outline to the answer yourself. Take as long as a half hour.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? OK, now that you’ve written your outline, continue …

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? You DID write your outline, didn’t you? Just checking … You can go on to the next page …

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? First … think of the major issues

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? This isn’t a bad order, but note that other orders are possible as well.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up. This switches what was II and III in the previous slide.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? Here’s another order.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Availability of information by other means A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. S hould AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up. This moves what was originally last to the beginning of the outline.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? Still other orders are possible. There may also be other ways of dividing up the major issues. This is just one example.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? Once you have the major issues down … write down issues within the major headings

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? Since you need to argue both sides … organize it that way, by issue

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: very different 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: burden is large 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: they’re selling things 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: They’re helping MWs 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation” language in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: we meet standard a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: AMIT doesn’t meet standard a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up. This is how the page (or pages – you can use more than one) will look overall at this point. The next slides show each section in larger font 

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 1.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: very different 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access?

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A. AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.employment places. 2.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: burden is large 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to)

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: they’re selling things a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: They’re helping MWs 1.” language in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: we meet standard a)stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: AMIT doesn’t meet standard a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? ng to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? Then think about more detailed arguments.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? There are different ways to proceed on this. What follows is one example.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate?

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? 4.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to)

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation language” in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well- being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? I. How important is info to MWs? A.AMIT: it’s very similar to what lawyer and field service worker offered 1.Employment info vital to economic well being 2.More than just information; offers possibility of actually securing next job 3.AMIT pays for transportation to TX, a great benefit for workers B.Trisha: 1.Employment info may not be as vital as information re: legal rights a)Legislature endorses importance of info by making a legal right (e.g., right to overtime). b)There’s no legislative endorsement of working at AMIT 2.Health care is more directly vital than a job; e.g., untreated illness or wound could kill. 3.Since info is from profit-making group, with reps getting a commission, maybe info is biased or partial or not accurate? II. Availability of information by other means A.AMIT: May not be so easily available if AMIT can’t enter 1.MWs have limited access to info; that might make info on jobs in other states hard to get 2.Possible language barriers 3.AMIT helps on both counts B.Trisha: Not clear that this is only way for MWs to get info. 1.Many or most people have cell phones 2.MWs may know from word of mouth where jobs are 3.AMIT does nothing to address need for info in other jobs beyond those Texan farms AMIT represents. Why single out AMIT for special access? III. Burden on Trisha A.AMIT: burden seems fairly small 1.No privacy interest on Trisha’s part; it’s a farm business 2.Telling someone re: future employment shouldn’t be any more interfering than telling someone re: legal rights or removing stitches 3.Might even help Trisha attract employees if people realize that one benefit of working there is easy access to info re future employment places. 4.Trisha can place reasonable restraints on time, location of AMIT workers entry B.Trisha: 1.If she has to let AMIT in there may be a lot of other similar recruiters, since there a lot of migrant farms all over the country. Burden is a lot more than letting in a few governmental service reps 2.Given profit incentive of AMIT reps, they may try to get them to leave before the scheduled time at Trisha’s farm is over (even though not supposed to) IV. Should AMIT be treated as a solicitor? A.Trish: AMIT is selling things 1.AMIT fundamentally different from legal services/field worker Shack a)AMIT reps are selling things. b)AMIT is for profit corp. 2.Shack says no right of solicitation. That’s what AMIT reps are doing. B.AMIT: AMIT is providing services 1.reps not selling MWs anything (it’s TX employers who pay the commission) so like free legal/medical services 2.therefore “no general right of solicitation” language in Shack is irrelevant. C.If AMIT is treated as solicitor – standard 1.AMIT: we satisfy standard a)Trish is depriving MWs of practical access to things he needs – info on jobs b)If Trish is worried about AMIT “stealing” MWs, she’s barring their entry to gain a commercial advantage for herself 2.Trish: AMIT fails standard a)Barring AMIT doesn’t deprive MWs of anything (1)Has zero impact on info about non-TX jobs (2)Very unlikely AMIT is only way for info on jobs to get to MWs b)Shack concern about employer not gaining commercial advantage is about overcharging employees for things at a commissary – hoping to avoid competition in selling things to MWs. That’s different from employer not wanting to let reps of potential competitor onto land. V. How broadly/narrowly to read Shack? A.AMIT: Read right of access broadly. If in doubt, grant access. 1.Offends human dignity to deny MWs, who are very low-income, disadvantaged, info re future employment 2.MWs are not organized, not in a position to help themselves. Presumption should be to let anyone in if they offer help to MWs well-being and there’s minimal practical burden on Trish B.Trish: Narrow exception to vital right of property. Unless very clear case for it don’t grant access. 1.Right to exclude is fundamental; therefore exceptions should be narrow and for highly compelling reason 2.Farm isn’t just workplace, but place where workers live. Not consistent with MWs’ dignity or privacy to have it crawling with paid reps of other farms trying to sign them up.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? NOTE: the previous slide shows the entire outline all on one page so you can see it together, but of course when you write the outline yourself you can take more than one page.

Should AMIT workers be allowed to enter under State v Shack? Good Luck!