Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Thursday, January 31, 2008

2d Holds That 1st A Public Concern Test Applies To Freedom of Association Claims

2dcirseal Piscottano v. Murphy, ___F.3d___(2d Cir. Dec. 7, 2007), is an important public sector labor law case involving the First Amendment Rights of Employees. The Connecticut Dep't. of Corrections terminated several employees because of their association with the the Outlaws Motorcycle Club.

The court held that the well known public concern test applicable to public employee speech equally applied to freedom-of-expressive-association claims. The court held that the expressive speech was a matter of public concern. The panel found the fact that law enforcement agencies believed that the Outlaws engaged in crime activities was sufficient to make this a matter of public concern. Significantly, however, the court also held that the employees expressing their approval of the Outlaws had the potential in several ways to disrupt and reflect negatively on operations. Therefore, the public employer's interest in maintaining efficiency and security outweighed the associational interests of plaintiffs.

This is a lengthly decision which does a nice job summarizing applicable law. First Amendment scholars will want to familiarize themselves with this decision.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 31, 2008 in Constitutional Law, Employment Law, Interesting Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

3L For Hire

Check out an interesting Jan. 31, 2008 Wall Street Journal Blog article about a 3L who placed an announcement like advertisement on the ABA Journal's web site seeking employment. That article is available here. That same student created a web site entitled 3L For Hire where he simply posted a resume and cover letter online.

Now all he needs is a lawyer blog!!

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 31, 2008 in Law Students, Oddly Enough, Law School | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

ABA Listserv's

The ABA maintains a large number of listserv's which may be helpful to practicing attorneys and to adjuncts. They are listed here.  Two that may be of interest to Adjuncts are "BLAdjunct" (business law adjuncts) and "DRAdjuncts" (for everyone else). 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 

January 31, 2008 in Legal Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Calif. Supreme Court Gives Bosses Leeway to Fire Medical Pot Users

Calif. Supreme Court Gives Bosses Leeway to Fire Medical Pot Users is an interesting Jan. 25, 2008 article in The Recorder by Matthew Hirsch.  It is about the California Supreme Court decision in  Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., S138130 (CA Jan. 25, 2008), where the California Supreme Court held (5-2) that the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996 did not prevent an employer from not firing a new employee who failed a preemployment drug test. As the article states:

Thursday's majority concluded that the Compassionate Use Act created a "narrow exception" that gives medical marijuana users a defense against criminal prosecution in state court -- but no additional rights under employment law.

The court rejected Ross' argument that the Compassionate Use Act implies that medical marijuana should be treated just like any legal prescription drug, and medical marijuana users should be treated like other people with disabilities.

After pointing out that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal law, majority author Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act "does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs.

"The point is perhaps too obvious to have generated appellate litigation," she added.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 31, 2008 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

D.C. Circuit Issues Primer on Katz Unilateral Change Doctrine

Dccir In Mail Contractors of America v. NLRB, ___F.3d___ (D.C. Cir. Jan. 29, 2008), the D.C. Circuit issued a lengthly decision which summarized in detail the Katz unilateral change doctrine and the McClatchy Newspapers, 321 NLRB 1386 (1996) exception.

Briefly, at impasse the general rule under Katz is that a party, usually the employer, can make a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining if it bargains to impasse over that subject. The unilateral change must be reasonably comprehended within the employer's pre-impasse proposals. Under McClatchy, there are some changes that cannot, however, be made because they would destroy the collective bargaining process.

The facts of this case concerned driver relay points where drivers would relieve others on long routes. This was found by the court not be within McClatchy which dealt with wages. This provision was thought to be more like a scheduling provision. Therefore, by unilaterally making a change to this relay point after impasse, the court found that the employer did not at unlawfully.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 30, 2008 in NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

2nd Circuit Holds That Dr. With Staff Privileges Is Employee Under Title VII

2dcircseal As readers to this blog, labor scholars and my students all know it is often difficult to determine exactly who is an employee under the various labor and employment law statutes. Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hospital, ___F.3d ___(2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2008), is an important decision holding that a physician who only receives staff privileges is an employee under Title VII. She therefore, is allowed to continue with her sex harassment case against the hospital.

In a lengthly opinion, the court applied the common law agency test which the Supreme Court held was applicable under ERISA in Nationwide v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) and a Copyright matter in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989). Applying this multi-factored test which focuses on the right of the employer to control the work, the plaintiff was able to establish that she was an employee even though she received no direct remuneration.

Although as a doctor, plaintiff had  a significant amount of professional independence, the court found that the hospital controlled the details and methods of her work. She was subject to surveillance of her professional performance, subject to quality control standards, and was required to schedule procedures at certain times to maximize hospital profit. Additionally, plaintiff was subjected to "reeducation" concerning the methods she utilized with respect to how she arrived at certain diagnoses and recommended treatment.

In footnote 10, the court indicated that an employee might be required to receive some form of remuneration in order for a hiring to occur and that a hiring may be necessary for employee status. However, the court does not decide that issue because the parties treated that issue as part of the Darden/Reid common law analysis. I am not sure that I understand the courts reasoning in this regard.

One of the more interesting things about this case is that the plaintiff appeared pro se, but the court appointed a large law firm, Duane Morris, to appear as Amicus Curiae to the plaintiff. In a footnote, the court thanked the law firm, but did not explain why it appointed Amicus. I have never seen that before.

There is alot more to this decision concerning professional judgment and peer review standards which may be of interest to scholars and attorneys.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein   

January 30, 2008 in Discrimination Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Information For College Adjuncts

College Adjuncts might be interested in and

The later cite has some interesting postings about college adjunct salaries and faculty unions.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 30, 2008 in Adjunct Information in General | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Under New York law, receipt of an arbitration award starts the 90-day statute of limitation for an appeal

Source: Initially published on the Internet in New York Public Personnel Law. Reproduced with permission. Copyright© 2006, 2007, 2008, Public Employment Law Press on Jan. 30, 2008(available here).

Receipt of an arbitration award starts the 90-day statute of limitation for an appeal

McRae v New York City Transit Authority, 39 A.D.3d 861, leave to appeal dismissed, 9 N.Y.3d 945

The Appellate Division dismissed Curtis McRae’s petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award dated December 28, 2004 as untimely.

The court commented that an Article 75 proceeding to vacate an arbitration award must be commenced within 90 days of receipt of the arbitrators’ determination.
The decision states that McRae’s union received a copy of the arbitrator’s determination, at the latest, on December 30, 2004.[2] Accordingly, said the court, this became the operative date from which to measure the 90-day statute of limitations set out in CPLR Section 7511(a).

According to the ruling, McRae filed his petition “on or about April 25, 2005,” clearly after the statute of limitations had run.

As to serving an arbitration award:

1. If the individual is not represented by an attorney or by a union official, the individual must be served to start the running of the statute of limitations.

2. If an employee is represented by an attorney, a copy of the award may be sent to the employee but it must serve the attorney to begin the running of the statute of limitations.

3. If the employee is represented by a person who is not an attorney, a copy of the award may be sent to the representative but it must serve the employee to start the statute of limitations running.

For example, in Weeks v State of New York, 198 AD2d 615, the Appellate Division refused to recognize the date of the delivery of an arbitration award to the employee’s union representative, who was not an attorney, as the date from which to measure when the statute of limitations began to run.


[1] Education Law Section 3020-a.5, however, sets a much shorter statute of limitations to appeal an adverse disciplinary determination involving educators. Section 3020-a.5 provides “Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seven thousand five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules.”

[2] The decision does not indicate the date on which McRae received the arbitration award nor does it indicate if a “union’s attorney” rather than a layperson, received the award.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 30, 2008 in Public Sector Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Breaking News: FMLA Amended To Double Amount of Leave Service Members Are Entitled Too

On Jan. 28, 2008, President Bush signed an amendment to the FMLA into law which doubles the amount of leave injured veterans and their family members are entitled too. Specifically, eligible employees are entitled up to 6 months of FMLA leave to care for an injured service member and 12 weeks of leave if a service member is called up for active duty under certain circumstances.

The Department of Labor summarized this new statute as follows:

On January 28, 2008, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 (NDAA), Pub. L. XXXX. Among other things, section 585 of the NDAA amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) to permit a “spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin” to take up to 26 workweeks of leave to care for a “member of the Armed Forces, including a member of the National Guard or Reserves, who is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, for a serious injury or illness.”

The provisions in the NDAA providing this leave are effective as of the date of the President’s signing. The Department of Labor is working quickly to prepare more comprehensive guidance regarding rights and responsibilities under this new legislation. In the interim, WHD will require employers to act in good faith in providing leave under the new legislation. Because the NDAA amends the FMLA, FMLA-type procedures should be used as may be appropriate (for example, procedures regarding substitution of paid leave and notice).

The NDAA also permits an employee to take FMLA leave for “any qualifying exigency (as the Secretary [of Labor] shall, by regulation, determine) arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty) in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency operation.” By its express terms, this provision of the NDAA is not effective until the Secretary of Labor issues final regulations defining “any qualifying exigency.” DOL is expeditiously preparing such regulations. In the interim, DOL encourages employers to provide this type of leave to qualifying employees.

A copy of the FMLA as amended is available here. H.R. 4986 is available here. A sample FMLA leave policy written by the management firm of Jackson, Lewis is available here.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 29, 2008 in FMLA | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

'Ghostwriting' Lawyers Can Remain Cloaked, but Not for Tactical Advantage

'Ghostwriting' Lawyers Can Remain Cloaked, but Not for Tactical Advantage is an interesting Jan. 29, 2008 New Jersey Law Journal article by Charles Toutant. It is about a New Jersey ethical opinion which indicates that it is appropriate in certain cases for lawyers to ghost write for pro se litigants. As the article states:

Disclosure is not required if the limited assistance is simply an effort to aid someone who is financially unable to secure an attorney or if it is part of a nonprofit program designed to provide legal assistance to people of limited means, the panel said in Opinion 713.

But full disclosure is required "where such assistance is a tactic by a lawyer or party to gain advantage in litigation by invoking traditional judicial leniency toward pro se litigants while still reaping the benefits of legal assistance."

Disclosure is also required when it's clear from the facts that the lawyer, not the pro se litigant, is "effectively in control of the final form and wording of the pleadings and conduct of the litigation," the panel said.

The ghostwriting issue has been haunting since last spring when U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni ruled, in Delso v. Trustees for the Retirement Plan for Hourly Employees of Merck & Co. Inc., that a lawyer's anonymous help in preparing pleadings without affirmatively notifying the court was "not emblematic of the candid honesty contemplated by [Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3]," which requires candor to the tribunal.

I have a serious problem with lawyer ghost writing because of the wide latitude which is given to pro se litigants. The standard utilized, looking at who was in control of the final product, is unworkable. This issue is ripe for academic commentary.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 29, 2008 in Law Review Ideas, Lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Note to Litigants: Don’t Use Work Email to Discuss Your Case

Note to Litigants: Don’t Use Work Email to Discuss Your Case is an important Jan. 28, 2008 Wall Street Journal Law Blog article by Ashby Jones. It discusses a New York lower court decision which held that an email sent by an employee from his employers e-mail account to his personal attorney was not privileged. Why? Because there is was expectation of privacy in an employer's e-mail system.

This is a very important issue that is likely to repeatedly arise. I am not sure that the court got this one right. What about if the conversation occurred over the phone at work? Is that different. Or, what if the employee invited the lawyer up to his private office owned by the employer and they had a private conversation. Would that be privileged. E-mail has changed the way we work and the way us profs teach. Therefore, I believe that decisions such as the one discussed in the article will not stand.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein   

January 29, 2008 in Law Review Ideas, Lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Court Reviews 'AIDS-Phobia' Suit Deadline

Court Reviews 'AIDS-Phobia' Suit Deadline is a Jan. 2, 2008 New York Law Journal article which previews an upcoming New York Court of Appeals case, Ornstein v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation.  A RN was stuck with a needle from an AIDS infected patient. The issue in the case is how long a period of time she should be permitted to recover emotional distress damages for. The article describes the case as follows:

In January 2004, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam denied New York City’s motion to limit Ms. Ornstein's claim for emotional damages to the six months after her thumb was punctured by the needle (NYLJ, Jan. 20, 2004). The First Department overruled Justice Abdus-Salaam, finding in Ornstein v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 27 AD3d 180 (2006), that her claims of a post-traumatic stress syndrome were "simply an end-run around the six-month AIDS phobia restriction" enunciated in Brown (NYLJ, Jan. 4, 2006).

Subsequent to the First Department's ruling, Ms. Ornstein's case went to trial. On Feb. 16, 2007, a Manhattan Supreme Court jury awarded her $330,000 for past pain and suffering and $15,000 in lost wages.

In her briefs, Ms. Ornstein argues that the fear and anxiety of waiting out a possible finding that she has the HIV virus was not confined to the six months following her being stuck by the needle. If 95 percent of HIV carriers test positive within six months of being exposed, that means 5 percent do not, Ms. Ornstein’s attorney Lenore Kramer observed in a brief.

I am sure that this case will be of interest to researchers and law review comnentators.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 29, 2008 in Law Review Ideas | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

6th Holds That Employee Who Falsely Signed Another Employee's Name On A Letter Engaged In Unprotected Activity

6thcir UAW v. NLRB, ___F.3d___(6th Cir. Jan. 28, 2008), illustrates just how narrow the protections of Section 7 are. Section 7, of course,  protects the rights of employees to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. However, that right is not absolute. Egregious employee conduct can render the employee unfit for service. Usually, that involves violence, employee disloyalty or product disparagement.

In UAW, however, this exception has been expanded to encompass a "deliberate falsity and activity that could "destroy the reputation and end the employment of another employee." In this case, an employee, a union supporter, sent a letter criticizing a supervisor at Ogihara America Corporation by falsely indicating that it was sent by another employee who happened not to be a union supporter. The false designation was on the package, not in the letter.   

The employer's actions demonstrate their motives. A local Kinko's had a security tape of the employee filling out the FedEx label, but would not release it without a subpoena. The employer had to spend a great deal of time tracking that down, but it did not stop there. Ogihara American Corp., the employer, then filed a defamation action in state court and subpoena's the tape. The opinion implies that the purpose of  that lawsuit was to get the subpoena. Actually, the employer only supported the lawsuit filed on behalf of the employee whose name was falsely included on the package.

Why did the employer go through the time and expense of doing this?? Though this answer is obvious, the court did not address it. It suspected the union supporter sent the package falsely and this was a way for the employer to undermine the union. Congratulations Ogihara America Corporation you won round one! However, in the long run Ogihara American Corporation, you may find it more useful to view your employees as partners-not adversaries.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein    

January 29, 2008 in NLRB | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) Legal Portal

U.S. is the latest legal portal. They even have a list of blogs and include Adjunct Law Prof Blog on their blogroll. Their nitch is a bit different than others in that they appear to target non-lawyers. My guess is that they hope to have a cite something like WebMD where laymen seek medical information.

This cite shows promise and is worth checking out and bookmarking.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 29, 2008 in Legal Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Failure To Admit Certificate of Criminal Conviction Renders Labor Arbitration Award Irrational And Subject To Vacatur

3ddept State of New York v. NYS Correction Officers, ___A.D.3d___ (3rd. Dep't. Dec. 27, 2007), is one of those rare cases where a labor arbitrators decision was vacated as irrational. A state mental health worker was convicted of criminal assault of patients. He was subsequently brought up on charges for hitting a patient. The arbitrator refused to admit proof of the convictions into evidence, but instead conducted a de novo review of the issue and found that the employee did not commit misconduct. The court found that this was irrational reasoning:

While arbitrators do not act irrationally or exceed their authority by giving collateral estoppel effect to criminal judgments (see Matter of Beard v Town of Newburgh, 259 AD2d 613, 614 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 958 [1999]), the failure to recognize and accept judgments of conviction and give them preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings is irrational . Here, the arbitrator acted irrationally and committed arbitral misconduct by not admitting proof of Neznanyj's criminal convictions which directly related to the charged employee misconduct and conclusively resolved the question of whether he committed that misconduct (see Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. v Hershkowitz, 308 AD2d at 336-338; see also Matter of Professional Staff Congress/City Univ. of N.Y. v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 39 NY2d at 323; Matter of Janis v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 271 AD2d 878, 879 [2000]; Matter of Bernstein v Mitgang, 242 AD2d 328, 328-329 [1997]; Matter of Intercontinental Packaging Co. v China Natl. Cereals, Oils & Foodstuff Import & Export Corp., Shanghai Foodstuffs Branch, 172 AD2d 224, 225 [1991] [vacatur justified where arbitrator refused to consider pertinent and material evidence]). Thus, we grant petitioner's application to vacate the arbitration award (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [i], [iii]).

The preclusive effect of criminal convictions may mandate a finding of employee misconduct, but the arbitrator is still able to select the appropriate penalty based upon that misconduct, giving due consideration to any public policy implications (see Matter of Binghamton City School Dist. [Peacock], ___ AD3d ___, 2007 NY Slip Op 09838 [Dec. 13, 2007]; City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v Campbell, 20 AD3d 313, 314 [2005]). Hence, we vacate the arbitration award and remit the matter to the arbitrator for a determination of the appropriate penalty.

This case seems to hold that an arbitrator MUST give criminal convictions preclusive effect and can only determine penalty. This might be going a bit to far. The case generated a dissent who picked up on that point.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 29, 2008 in Arbitration Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

Court defines the word "cohabitation"

An interesting December 31, 2007 New York Law Journal article by Mark Fass entitled "'Cohabitation' Must Include Economic Piece, Panel Says" is about a family law case where a divorce settlement states that a wife will be paid $10,000 per month unless certain specified events happen-one of which is cohabitation for substanially 60 or more days.

A divided New York appellate court in Graev v. Graev  ___A.D.3d___(1st Dept/ Dec. 27, 2007), held that the word cohabitation included an economic component.  As the article states:

In a 3-2 decision, the majority relied on "judicial decisions giving a distinct meaning to the term," rather than the "dictionary definition" suggested by the minority. New York cases, the majority found, have "uniformly" construed cohabitation to contain an economic component.

"The number of nights that MP slept at Ms. Graev's Connecticut summer house is not decisive, because he had his own home and there is absolutely no evidence that the couple shared household expenses or functioned as a single economic unit," the majority held in its unsigned opinion.

"In other words, there was no showing that they 'cohabited,' as New York courts have consistently construed this term in this context."

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 29, 2008 in Oddly Enough, Legal | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, January 27, 2008

President Bush Announces His Proposed NLRB Appointments

Nlrb On Jan. 25, 2008, President Bush announced his intent to reappoint  Robert Battista and Dennis Walsh to the Board and to appoint management attorney Gerald Morales to the National Labor Relations Board. The full Press release is available here. It provides as follows:

The President intends to nominate Robert J. Battista, of Michigan, to be a Member and designate Chair upon confirmation of the National Labor Relations Board, for the remainder of a five-year term expiring 12/16/09. Mr. Battista recently served as Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. Prior to this, he served as a Partner at Butzel Long. Mr. Battista received his bachelor's degree from the University of Notre Dame and his JD from the University of Michigan Law School.

The President intends to nominate Gerard Morales, of Arizona, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board, for a five-year term expiring 12/16/12. Mr. Morales currently serves as a Partner at Snell & Wilmer, LLP. Prior to this, he served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Arizona College of Law. Earlier in his career, he served as a Field Attorney at the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Morales received his bachelor's degree from Stetson University, his master's degree from Tulane University, and his JD from Tulane University.

The President intends to nominate Dennis P. Walsh, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board for the remainder of a five-year term expiring 08/27/08 and an additional five-year term expiring 08/27/13. Mr. Walsh recently served as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board. Prior to this, he served as Special Assistant to a Board Member of the National Labor Relations Board. Earlier in his career, he served as Chief Counsel to a Board Member of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Walsh received his bachelor's degree from Hamilton College and his JD from Cornell University.

I have not been able to find much about this on the internet. Senator Kennedy apparently thought that the President was only appointing two Republicans when in fact he also nominated former Democratic Member Walsh. Senator Kennedy issued the following statement on his web site:

  It’s unbelievable that President Bush would renominate Mr. Battista to the Board, after he led the most anti-worker, anti-labor, anti-union Board in its history.  America’s hard-working men and women deserve a Board that will uphold their rights, not undermine them.  With these nominations, the Administration has again demonstrated its hostility to fairness and justice in the workplace.”

Mr. MoraIes appears to be a management attorney from Phoenix. Battista's term as Chairman just ended and his anti-union decisions are well known. I do not think there is any, repeat any, chance that Battista stands a chance in this Democratically controlled Senate. Additionally, I also think that there is virtually no chance that Morales will be confirmed. While I do believe that the Senate would confirm Walsh, I doubt that the Senate would agree to any package that included Battista. I also doubt that the President would appoint Walsh alone because that would give the Democrats control of the Board.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein    

January 27, 2008 in NLRB | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)


I just recently stumbled across Wikiquote. It lists thousands of quotes. It is organized by person and by subject. I looked at some quotes from Leonard Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Interestingly, this site also gives quotes from speeches. I found Hillary Clinton's famous quote about staying home and baking cookies on this site. If your looking for a quote, this is a good place to look.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 

January 27, 2008 in Legal Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

EEOC Publishes A Description of Significant Race and Color Discrimination Cases

Eeoc_3 The EEOC has published a description of significant race and color discrimination case that is available here. This is part of their E-Race initiative and this information may be helpful to researchers. This document summarizes the EEOC's actions in about 100 different cases from 2005 to the present time.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 

January 27, 2008 in Discrimination Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

EEOC Issues Rule Stating That Employer's Can Reduce Retiree Health Insurance Once They Qualify For Medicare

Eeoc_2  A December 27, 2007, A.P. article entitled EEOC Clarifies Retiree Health Plans  discusses a December 26, 2007 EEOC rule which permits employers to reduce retiree health insurance once they are eligible for Medicare. The rule thus makes clear that employers can spend less on employees under 65 than those over 65. This rule codifies a practice which most employers already follow.

The EEOC's press release is available here. The EEOC also published a question and answer list that many might find help that is available here.   A copy of the new rule as published in the Federal Register is available here. It will be codified at 29 CFR 1625 and 1627.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 27, 2008 in Discrimination Law | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)