Not So Sweet Amusement Park Experience: Student Moot Court Competition Dug into Obesity as Disability and Emotional Distress

In a nation where obesity is an epidemic, how are accommodations for obese individuals being met, particularly at destinations where overindulgence on sugary foods is core to the company’s business model?

This year’s Rutgers Law–Camden Hunter Moot Court Competition, a yearlong five-credit course that culminates with final arguments by two two-person teams, centered on the following issues: whether obesity qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act; whether a candy-themed amusement park should modify its rides for patrons; and whether the treatment of an obese patron by a park employee renders the park liable for the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.  Not a good day at the fictitious Candied Adventures for imagined plaintiff Molly Kemery, who claimed she was publicly shamed for not being able to fit in the roller coaster car at the point of boarding by its attendant and subsequently humiliated on social media from other members of her high school reunion trip that witnessed the scene.

During the final arguments on April 7, held at the federal courthouse in Camden, actual judges presided, including the Honorable Theodore A. McKee, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; the Honorable Stuart J. Rabner, Chief Justice, New Jersey Supreme Court; and the Honorable Marjorie O. Rendell, United States District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

All three judges spoke favorably of the student attorneys for their strong arguments and also praised the problem created.  An added delight was expressed in their receiving actual candy bars with the invented theme park printed on them.  Rabner noted that “the performance level was simply superb” and that it was “a terrific problem.”

Students were equally impressed with the judges. “It was one thing to know my argument and understand the law and facts of the simulation,” says Bernstein. “It was another thing entirely to try to stay calm and collected while being bombarded with questions by some of the best legal minds in our community. The simple experience of witnessing those judges in action was special and being able to participate in a discussion with them and challenge their thinking was even more special.”

The judges did rule in favor of the appellant, selecting the winning team as Creuz and Bernstein; naming Jaclyn Palmerson as best oralist.

For Palmerson, participating in the program and being named best oral advocate made her law school career, and she thinks, better positions her for professional life.

“Participating in Hunter has been a standout experience in my law school career, and I know that my participation and being named Best Oral Advocate will be a standout line on my resume for the rest of my legal career,” she says. Palmerson also credits her competitors for her success: “One of the most rewarding parts of arguing against so many other students is that you are able to pick up some of the strengths of your other competitors and become a stronger oral advocate yourself.

Arguing in front of a live audience is part of the exciting finale to the competition, but for winner Creuz working so closely with a team-member on the writing was equally rewarding.

“This was the first time I co-authored a legal brief with someone and I learned a lot from that process,” he says. “I was incredibly fortunate in that my partner was someone I trusted and knew I could work with, but the experience overall was still new for me. I am now much more confident in my ability to combine different writing styles, edit to improve the flow of writing, and weave a common theme throughout a brief written from two different perspectives.” 

According to Rutgers Law–Camden Adjunct Professor Jenean Kirby, who taught the course with Rutgers Law–Camden Clinical Professor Ruth Anne Robbins, this year’s program was extremely successful.

“Each of the 40 students in the program worked so hard to hone both the oral advocacy skills and develop a mastery of the law, that it made the competition especially tight.  I was proud of each and every student in the program when they approached the podium and took on the role of client-centered advocate,” she says.  “The 55 practitioners and sitting state and federal court judges who acted as judges within the competition repeatedly commented on how impressive our students were,  stating that our students were often better prepared and better oral advocates than the practicing attorneys that they see in court every day.”

For 25 years, the Rutgers Law Hunter Moot Court Competition, dedicated to the memory of the Honorable James Hunter III, has emphasized written advocacy in the fall and oral advocacy in the spring, with the program culminating in the spring, when 64 students, selected from 175, compete in teams to present a winning oral argument.