Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Top 100 Employment Law Blogs

Delaware Employment Law complied a list of the top 100 Employment Law Blogs. This list should be very helpful to readers-even though they left one out! Their list is as follows:

1. Affirmative Action Blog Spot
2. Alaska Employment Law
3. Boston Employment Lawyer Blog
4. California Employment Law - Fight Harassment
5. California Labor & Employment Law Blog
6. California Labor and Employment Law
7. California Workforce Resource Blog
8. Canadian Employment Law
9. Charles A. Krugel, Labor & Employment Law, HR Law
10. Colorado Employment Law
11. Compliance Training Blog (California)
12. Connecticut Education Lawyer & Attorney
13. Connecticut Employment Law Blog
14. Daily Developments in EEO Law
15. Delaware Business Litigation Report
16. Delaware Employment Law Blog
17. Discriminations
18. Diversity Insight
19. Doorey's Workplace Law Blog (Canada)
20. Drama, Conflict, Despair & Victory at Work
21. E-Legal Lawyer
22. Employee Free Choice Act
23. Employer Notes
24. Employer's Law Blog
25. Employer's Lawyer
26. Employment & Labor Relations - Porter Wright
27. Employment Advisory
28. Employment Law @ Work Updater
29. Employment Law Bits
30. Employment Law Blog by Jill Pugh
31. Employment Law Colorado
32. Employment Privacy Law (Littler)
33. Employment Rights Blog
34. Fair Labor Standards Act Law
35. Federal Sector FMLA Blog
36. Florida Employment Law Blog
37. Florida Special Needs Lawyer
38. FMLA law
39. George's Employment Blawg
40. Georgia Employment Law Blog
41. Greater Valley Forge HR Law Link
42. Gruntled Employees
43. HR Briefcase: Labor and Employment Law Blog
44. HR Lawyer's Blog
45. HR Legal News
46. Human Rights in the Workplace
47. Immigration Law for Employers
48. Jottings By an Employer's Lawyer
49. Juz the Fax
50. Kentucky Employment Law Notes
51. Labor & Employment Law Blog
52. Labor & Employment Law Blog (Shepphard Mullin)
53. Laconic Law Blog
54. Lancaster Employment Law Blog (Pennsylvania)
55. Lisa Law View
56. Los Angeles Employment Lawyer Blog
57. Manpower Employment Blawg
58. Maryland Employment Law
59. My Disability Blog
60. National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund
61. New Jersey Employment Lawyer & Attorney - Steinberg Law Offices
62. New Jersey Fox Rothschild HIPPA
63. New Jersey Fox Rothschild Wage and Hour
64. New York Disability Lawyer & Attorney - Turley Redmond & Rosasco
65. New York Employment Lawyer Blog
66. New York Public Personnel Law
67. Nolo's Employment Law Blog
68. Northern Exposure (Canada)
69. Northwest Labor and Employment
70. OFFCP Blog Spot
71. Ohio Employer's Law Blog
72. Oregon Law and Employment Law
73. Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog
74. Pennsylvania Family Medical Leave Act
75. Pennsylvania Labor & Employment
76. Privacy (Proskauer Rose)
77. Quirky Employment Law Questions
78. Quitamhelp
79. RFID Lawyer & Attorney
80. Rush on Business (Iowa)
81. Storm's California Employment Law
82. Strategic HR Lawyer
83. Suits in the Workplace
84. Texas Non-Compete Law Blog
85. Thoughts from a Management Lawyer
86. Trading Secrets
87. Transgender Workplace Diversity
88. Virginia Non-Competes
89. Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights
90. Wage and Hour Lawyer & Attorney - Yezbak Law Offices
91. Wage Law: California Wage & Hour Law Weblog
92. Washington Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Law Blog
93. What's New in Employment Law?
94. Whistleblower Law Blog
95. Whistleblower Lawyer Blog
96. Word on Employment Law
97. Workplace Privacy Counsel
98. Workplace Prof Blog
99. WorkplaceHorizons
100. Top 20 Employee Benefits Blogs

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Employee Web Based E-Mail- A New Frontier??

Investigating Personal Web Based E-Mail is an excellent June 26, 2009 law.com article. It correctly explains that the law is fairly settled with employee use of employer email. Employees almost never will have a cause of action. But what about if an employee uses the employer's computer to access web based e-mail. This raises a whole host of statutory under the Stored Communications Act and privacy issues. As the article explains, there is not much law with respect to this issue which makes it ripe for law review commentary. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Attorney’s letter to witnesses in a grievance proceeding held an attempt to threaten or influence a witness

Kalyanaram v New York Institute of Technology, 2009 NY Slip Op 04349, decided on June 4, 2009, Appellate Division, First Department

After investigating complaints from 37 students alleging that Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, a member the New York Institute of Technology’s faculty had engaged in inappropriate conduct during class, the Institute sent a letter to Kalyanaram notifying him that, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing faculty employed by New York Institute of Technology, "you are hereby dismissed, effective as of May 21, 2007, for engaging in serious professional misconduct."

The letter asserted that Kalyanaram denigrated students' intelligence and ethnicity, made sexually explicit remarks, demeaned other faculty members at an affiliated college and made sexual advances toward female students.

The CBA provides that in the event respondent decides to "suspend or dismiss a faculty member," he or she may file a grievance, in which case the parties will utilize the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedures. The CBA also provides that the faculty member "shall be paid until the review procedures set forth herein are exhausted and a final determination rendered,” and the Instituted continued to pay Kalyanaram his regular salary pending resolution of the grievance proceeding.

After filed his grievance on June 4, 2007, Kalyanaram filed a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7502(c), seeking to “compel arbitration.” Supreme Court dismissed Kalyanaram petition as he had already triggered the grievance/arbitration procedure but granted the Institute’s motion enjoining “[Kalyanaram] and his agents from threatening, or attempting to influence any of the witnesses or prospective witnesses in the arbitration proceeding. In addition, Supreme Court awarded the Institute costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(2) totaling $5,142.50 as against Kalyanaram and $10,142.50 as against his attorney, Labe M. Richman, Esq.

In his dissent, Judge Tom described the attempt to influence witnesses as follows:

“[Kalyanaram], already represented by an attorney on his claim of wrongful termination of employment, retained a criminal lawyer whose sole contribution was to send a letter to [the Institute’s] witness stating that her testimony against [Kalyanaram} could constitute perjury, followed by a letter to the respective director of security at each of [Institute’s] New York campuses asserting that "an investigation by your office will lead you to the conclusion that [the witness] committed perjury in violation of New York Penal Law Sections 210.05; 210.10."

The Appellate Division, including Judge Tom, affirmed the lower court’s decision with respect to granting the Institute’s motion prohibiting Kalyanaram and his agents from threatening, or attempting to influence any of the witnesses or prospective witnesses in the arbitration proceeding, but vacated Supreme Court’s awarding of costs.

Judge Tom, in his dissent, agreed that Supreme Court’s granting that portion of the Institute’s motion barring attempts to influence witnesses was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion. He, however, would have also awarded the Institute costs, “concluding that the imposition of costs and the award of attorneys' fees against Kalyanaram and his additional counsel “was a provident exercise of Supreme Court's discretion.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_04349.htm

Reprinted with permission from New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Random Drug testing policy for school employees unconstitutional

Jones v. Graham County Bd. of Educ., No. 08-477 (N.C. App. June 2, 2009), is an interesting North Carolina Court of Appeals case. The court held that a Board of Education policy requiring employees to submit to random, suspicionless drug-testing violates the search and seizure provision of the North Carolina Constitution. When several employees, along with the North Carolina Association of Educators, sued over this initial policy, the board revised it to apply only to employees designated as holding “safety sensitive” positions. 

The court focused on whether the BOE’s policy violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A “suspicionless search may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” . In examining whether the case presented such “special needs,” the court first concluded that the policy’s testing procedure is “remarkably intrusive.” Next, it turned to the question of whether board employees have a lower expectation of privacy because they are employed in a public school system. While public employees whose positions are subject to heavy safety regulations have a lower expectation of privacy, here there was no evidence that the employees were so regulated. The BOE’s premise that “Fourth Amendment rights ... are different in public schools than elsewhere” was misplaced, because that premise applies to the “degree of supervision and control [over schoolchildren] that could not be exercised over free adults.” Finally, the court stated that “the evidence completely fails to establish the existence of a ‘concrete’ problem which the policy is designed to prevent.” Having balanced all the circumstances, the court concluded that “the employees’ acknowledged privacy interests outweigh the Board’s interest in conducting random, suspicionless testing."

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Strike Could Threaten 2010 World Cup

A July 9, 2009 Associated Press article reported that South African construction workers recently went on strike and that strike could effect the 2010 World Cup.  As the article states:

Thousands of workers at stadiums across the country put down their tools after wage negotiations deadlocked earlier this week. Workers are demanding a 13 percent pay increase while employers are offering 10.4 percent.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hat Tip: Shruti Sasidharan, Student New York Law School

Copy of Michael Jackson's Will Available

A copy of Michael Jackson's will is all over the internet. If you have not seen it by now, it is available here. It was executed in 2002 and what is surprising to me is that it only spans 5 pages. He leaves his entire Estate to the Jackson Family Trust. That Trust is not disclosed. I wonder if that Trust is only for his children. I doubt it. Jackson's elderly mother is the guardian of her children, but if she is unwilling to do so, he appoints Diana Ross. It is interesting that no one else in the Jackson family is mentioned. The 3 executors of the Estate are also outside the Jackson family.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

What the Franken Victory Means

The AP ran an interesting July 2, 2009 story about the significance of Franken being seated as a U.S. Senator, available here.As they point out, 2 Democrats (Byrd and Kennedy) have been out for months. It will also give the Democrats 60 votes-which will give them carte blanche to pass legislation.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Adjunct Law Prof Blog-Research and Blog Roll Updates

As many of you know, on the left hand side of this blog I maintain a list of free legal research sites as well as a blog roll. I have just updated both. Today, a decent amount of research can be done over the internet for free. It still does not beat Lexis or Westlaw, but you cannot beat the price!
Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Court vacates jury’s determination that employee was laid off because of her political affiliation

Miller v County of Nassau, 2009 NY Slip Op 31178(U), May 11, 2009, Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 28936/92, Judge: Ute W. Lally [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Roberta Miller was the only Democrat employed by the Nassau County Department of Senior Citizens Affairs. She was one of about 600 employees demoted or laid off from their positions with Nassau County because of a $115 million budget deficit. Alleging that she was selected for layoff because she was a member of the Democratic Party, Miller filed an Article 78 petition seeking reinstatement with back pay pursuant to §77 of the Civil Service Law.*

Nassau County denied that Miller was laid off in bad faith but conceded that she was entitled to one year's back salary because her position "was required to be abolished by the Legislature."**

Although the jury found that Miller had been laid off in bad faith, the County asked the court to vacate the jury’s decision and grant its motion for judgment dismissing Miller’s petition “as a matter of law.” Although Judge Lally set aside the jury's decision, the County's motion for summary judgment was denied by the court.

Commencing with the premise that “A public employer may, in the absence of bad faith, collusion, or fraud, abolish positions for purposes of economy or efficiency, Judge Lally recited the basic notion that following the seperation of temporary and provisional employees, permanent employees are to be excessed in their "inverse order" of seniority. In the event such an employee is laid off, and a less senior employee retained in the same title, the layoff will be deemed to be in bad faith.

In adopting a layoff plan in times of fiscal restraint, said the court, a public employer must be guided by principles of "efficiency and economy" and may not target employees for layoff based upon their political party affiliation.

Using as an analogy cases alleging unlawful discrimination, Judge Lally said that statistical evidence, i.e., the percentage of Democrats laid off as measured againts the percentage of Republicans laid off, along with "other objectively established evidence," may give rise to an inference that the decision to lay off a particular individual was not made in good faith.

While Miller was the only Democrat in her department, the court said that there was no evidence submitted as to “how many Democrats were employed by other departments of the County or how they were affected by the layoffs.”***

Judge Lally found that while Miller’s salary was funded in part by federal funds, her termination must be deemed to have resulted in cost saving because there is no evidence introduced to the contrary.

Noting that Miller was hired and promoted under Republican administrations, the court ruled that in the absence of statistical evidence that Democrats were more adversely affected by Nassau County’s layoffs, “there is no fair interpretation of the evidence that [Miller] was laid off based upon her political party affiliation.”

Accordingly, Judge Lally set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of Miller as against the weight of the evidence. A new trial was ordered with respect to the issue of whether Miller was laid off based upon her affiliation with the Democratic Party.

* Civil Service Law § 77 provides that an officer or employee reinstated by court order after a finding that he or she was removed from their former position in violation of the Civil Service is entitled to back pay, less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefits he or she may have received in connection with such dismissal.

** Although not discussed in the decision, this is apparently a reference to the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency. In Torre v County of Nassau, 86 NY2d 421, the Court of Appeals explained that the doctrine holds that “a position created by a legislative act must be abolished by a correlative legislative act.”

*** The court also noted that “Where the number of members of a particular party employed in the unit is too small to make statistical evidence reliable, plaintiff may prove his or her case without statistics.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2009/2009_31178.pdf

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Alumni Sponsors At Harvard

I'm Going To Harvard. Will You Sponsor Me is an interesting June 12, 2009 article. It is about a new service which matches alumni sponsors with students who can not afford college. As the article states:

Unithrive, which made its debut last month, matches alumni lenders and cash-strapped students, who post photographs and biographical information and can request up to $2,000. The loans are interest-free and payable within five years of graduation.

The nonprofit site is the brainchild of three recent Harvard graduates, who hope it can help ease the crisis in paying for college, especially if it is one day rolled out to other colleges that cannot afford to be as generous as their alma mater, which already awards scholarships to all students with demonstrated need.

The appeal of direct donor-to-student loans, Unithrive’s founders say, is that alumni will have a personal connection to current students: those requesting loans list hometowns, majors and classes they have taken. Alumni can lend to students with whom they feel a bond. They are promised updates three times a year from students they support — not unlike the letters that sponsors of poor children in Africa receive through the Christian Children’s Fund. In this case, however, the pitch for the charity is not being delivered by a tearful Sally Struthers but by the three founders: Joshua Kushner, who graduated last year and is a scion of a wealthy real estate family (his older brother, Jared Kushner, bought The New York Observer shortly after he graduated from Harvard), Nimay Mehta and Tanuj Parikh, who graduated this month.

This sounds like a great idea. Are law schools next??

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Government reports on restraint and seclusion of students

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued an updated version of its April 19, 2009 report on the legal issues concerning the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, including their application both to children covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The May 19 version is updated to reflect the findings of another report issued on the same day by the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO).

Additionally, a short paper issued by the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) acknowledges the concerns and makes policy recommendations for reform.

Copies of these documents and information from the National School Boards Association can be found  below.

CRS report
NSBA School Law pages on restraint and seclusion
OSEP paper

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

JAG Lawyer Applications On The Rise

Military JAG Corps Report Recruitment Surge is a interesting June 8, 2009 National Law Journal article. The article reports that applications for positions as a JAG officer are approaching record levels. This comes as no surprise to me-given the poor state of the economy. Nevertheless, JAG may offer an alternative to some. However, it is not so easy to even land one of these positions. As the article states:

The Air Force has the second-largest JAG Corps, with about 1,200 judge advocates. In 2008, it received 769 applications for 120 positions, up by 27% from the 605 applications it received in 2007, according to Lt. Col. Bryan D. Watson, an Air Force judge advocate. The Air Force received 480 applications between January and the end of May, meaning 2009 is on pace to eclipse last year's total.

"Anything that we could say about why there has been an increase would be purely anecdotal," Watson said. "It may well be that at least part of it is due to our increased visibility. But it may be because of the economic situation. We just don't know."

Melody Briand, who graduated from the University of Akron School of Law in December 2008, was initially rejected by the Air Force JAG Corps last fall. She reapplied and was accepted in February, when the selection board chose just 20 of the 210 applicants. She recently passed the Ohio bar and will begin her military training in August.

"I was definitely concerned after I was rejected, but I was told that [rejection] is common and I should just keep applying," Briand said. "I really didn't think I would get it."

The Navy JAG Corps has approximately 750 judge advocates and has seen the most dramatic increase in applicants from 2008 to 2009 — a 100% jump. The Navy received 923 applications for the 2009 fiscal year, Goldsmith said, and accepted about 75. Slightly more than 8% of the applicants made the cut.

The Marine Corps, which has the smallest lawyer compliment at about 440 judge advocates, has also seen an increase in applications . . .

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Goldman: Why Law Students Should Take the Federal Courts Course

Roger Goldman (Saint Louis University Law School) has posted his short essay, "Why Students Should Take the Federal Courts Course," on the Social Science Research Network.  Saint Louis University Law Review has accepted the paper for publication.  Here is the abstract:

The most unique feature of the American judiciary is its dual system of trial courts, one state and one federal. This article explores the reasons traditionally given for the need for lower federal courts and whether, in practice, the federal courts are actually serving those needs. For example, it has been assumed that state courts are less hospitable to federal civil rights and consumer claims than federal courts, yet in many jurisdictions, plaintiffs’ lawyers prefer filing claims in state courts under state anti-discrimination or consumer laws rather than federal laws to prevent removal of the case to federal court. The article encourages third-year law students to take this capstone course because of its unique blend of the highly theoretical with the very practical questions facing any lawyer in deciding whether to file in - or remove to - federal court.

I took the Federal Courts course offered at South Texas Law School when I was in law school and the course was one of my favorite law school classes, so I can relate to Professor Goldman's essay.  Any law student considering a trial practice should understand the federal court system -- not all cases that begin in state court end there.

Craig Estlinbaum

District’s policy of reviewing of valedictory speeches upheld

Corder v. Lewis Palmer Sch. Dist. No. 38, No. 08-1293 (10th Cir. May 29, 2009), is an interesting Student First Amendment case. The 10th Circuit held that a school district did not violate a student’s free speech rights by requiring her to submit her valedictory speech for prior review or by withholding her diploma until she apologized for disregarding the policy. The court also found that the policy did not violate the student’s right to free exercise of religion simply because her speech contained religious content, nor did it violate Colorado’s statute guaranteeing student publications freedom from prior restraint by school officials.
The School had an unwritten policy which required that each valedictorian submit his or her proposed graduation speech to the principal for review. The speech submitted by Erica Corder, one of 15 valedictorians made no mention of her religious beliefs. However, the speech she gave urged the audience to “find out more about the sacrifice [Jesus] made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with Him.”  The student was not given her diploma during the graduation and later was told she would not receive it unless she publicly apologized. She did so and received her diploma, but then sued raising six claims: (1) violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment; (2) compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment; (3) violation of the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) violation of freedom of religion under the First Amendment; (5) violation of the Colorado statute on student publications; and (6) violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

The main issue on appeal was Erica’s claim that the policy violated her free speech rights. The 10th held  that the question was controlled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), because, given the level of control school officials exerted over who was named a valedictorian and the content of the speeches in advance of the graduation, the speech at issue constituted school-sponsor speech bearing the imprimatur of the school. Hazelwood allows school officials to exercise editorial control over school-sponsored speech, provided any restriction is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. Here, the court found, “[a] graduation ceremony is an opportunity for the School District to impart lessons on discipline, courtesy, and respect for authority,” and school districts are “entitled to review the content of speeches in an effort to preserve neutrality on matters of controversy within a school environment.” Turning to the claim that her forced apology amounted to impermissible compelled speech, the court first noted that under student speech jurisprudence, compelled speech is no different from censored speech. Therefore, the court reasoned, because the school could censor Erica’s speech under Hazelwood, it also could compel her to apologize for disregarding its policy, where this was related to the legitimate pedagogical purpose of learning discipline, courtesy, and respect for authority.

As for the free exercise of religion claim, the court concluded that the policy of prior review was one of general applicability that operated in a neutral manner as to content of all the speeches, regardless of content. Erica was not disciplined under the policy because of the religious content of her speech, but because gave a different speech than the one she had submitted to the principal. The equal protection claim also was without merit, because Erica had failed to assert that she is a member of a suspect class or was denied a fundamental right. Finally, the Colorado statute was inapplicable her speech was not a part of a student publication.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

MT: Employer must accommodate service dog of worker with a disability

McDonald v Dept of Environmental Quality, MontSCt, June 17, 2009, is an interesting Supreme Court of Montana case. The use of a specially trained service dog by a state employee who required the dog’s assistance for both a physical and mental disability was a reasonable accommodation, the Montana supreme court ruled. The employee had requested nonskid floor covering on several occasions after her service dog repeatedly suffered injuries when slipping on the tile floor and subsequently had to be retired from service. Although the employer acknowledged that it was required to accommodate the employee, it dragged its heels for 17 months under the apparent belief that it had no legal obligation to accommodate Bess, the service dog. The state high court saw things differently, however, concluding the failure to provide an effective alternative accommodation constituted an adverse employment action.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

U.S. To Encourage Online Education

U.S. Push For Free Online Courses is an interesting June 29, 2009 article from Inside Higher Education. It reports that the Obama Administration plans to offer federal funds to colleges and high schools that offer free online courses. The program would be designed to provide basic education skills. As the article states:

The program is part of a series of efforts to help community colleges reach more students and to link basic skills education to job training. The proposals are outlined in administration discussion drafts obtained by Inside Higher Ed. A formal announcement could come in the next few weeks. In addition to the free online courses, the plan would provide $9 billion over 10 years to help community colleges develop and improve programs related to preparing students for good jobs, and a $10 billion loan fund (at low or no interest) for community college facilities.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Adjunct Professor Abuse

Will Teach For Tenure is an excellent June 25, 2009 article by Kevin Clarke who writes for U.S. Catholic.
It outlines how grossly underpaid adjuncts are at colleges-particularly at several Catholic universities which the article focuses on. As the article points out, in 1975 30% of profs were adjuncts. Today that number is between 50 and 70%. Why? Because adjuncts get no benefits, have no tenure and receive embarrassingly low wages.    
One might ask why is that? My answer is because the universities can get away with it. Many adjuncts teach because they like it and it is good for business. Additionally, having the word "Prof." next to you might bring you clients in your day job.
I do not believe that anyone seriously believes that having so few full timers is good for the students. Isn't it suppose to be about the students? So what is the solution?? It is time that more and more faculty seriously think about joining unions. In the private sector, there are issues with full timers unionizing because they may, repeat MAY, be considered managerial employees. However, most adjuncts are not managerial employees and there is no such restriction at public universities.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 

Johnson & Johnson wins $1.67 Billion from Texas Jury

Johnson & Johnson won a $1.67 billion federal court verdict from an East Texas jury yesterday, the largest patent jury verdict in U.S. history.  Johnson & Johnson's Centocor unit sued Abbott Laboratories claiming Abbott interfered with Johnson & Johnson's exclusive license to produce the Humira arthritis drug.  The jury awarded Johnson & Johnson $1.17 billion in lost profits and $504 million in royalties.  Bloomberg has the full story here.

Craig Estlinbaum

Injunction Against Strike Is Not a Prior Restraint On Speech

Commonwealth Employment Relations Board v. Boston Teachers Assoc., ___N.E.2d___ (Mass. App. Court  June 28, 2009), is an interesting public sector labor law case. A state appellate court held that a trila court's preliminary injunction prohibiting a teachers strike in connection with the negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement placed no prior restraint upon the union to engage in public debate and speech. Rather, the injunction simply prohibited the union from engaging in actions prohibited under state law. State law outlaws such pubic employee strikes.

Unfortunately, this decision is not particularly well written and is conclusionary. There is not much analysis of the case law with respect to this important issue.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Madoff Sentenced To 150 Years

Madoff is Sentenced to 150 Years For Ponzi Scheme  is an interesting June 29, 2009 NY Times article. U.S.  Judge Denny Chin, a former labor lawyer, through the book at him and sentenced him to the max for one of the biggest schemes ever.
I have several thoughts about this. First, this crime is significant and therefore, it does not surprise me that the Judge gave him the max. However, defendants convicted on manslaughter do not get 150 years. Is this crime worse?? I think not.
In the end, does the amount of time really matter. Madoff is 71 years old. If he got 25 years, chances are that he would die in prison. But is 25 years a fair sentence. Again, what due people who commit manslaughter get??
To be clear, I am not defending Madoff. I am questioning our system.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein