Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Tennessee school district’s ban on Confederate flag displays is constitutional

Defoe v. Spiva, No. 09-6080 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2010), is an interesting case. The Sixth Circuit held that a school district’s ban on displays of the Confederate flag in school does not violate students’ free speech rights. Although the panel’s decision was unanimous, the panel issued two separate opinions, with the concurrence, in which two of the judges joined, governing as the majority’s position to the extent in differed with the other opinion. The first opinion concluded that the ban met the requirements of the substantial disruption standard enunciated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). It found that school officials had sufficient evidence from which to reasonably forecast that permitting Confederate flag symbols in its schools would result in substantial disruption or material interference with the school environment.

The concurrence differed by relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), to uphold the ban. It enumerated two principles for its reliance on Morse instead of Tinker. First, the U.S. Supreme Court in Morse recognized that “the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is not absolute.” Second, just as the Court in  Morse recognized an “’important, perhaps compelling interest’ in deterring drug use in the schools, there is of course a comparably ‘important, perhaps compelling’ interest in reducing racial tension in the public schools.”

Law review commentary on this issue would be most welcome.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 30, 2010 in Education Law, Law Review Ideas | Permalink | Comments (1)

Supremes Hold No 1983 Liability Unless Municipal Custom or Policy Involved

Supreme Court

 Los Angeles County, Calif. v. Humphries, 562 U.S. ___(Nov. 30, 2010) was just decided by the Supremes. In a short decision, the Court held that a municipality is not liable for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983 regardless of whether the relief sought by the plaintiffs is prospective or for monetary damages unless the plaintiffs can show that their injury was caused by a municipal policy or custom. The case involved two plaintiffs who continued to be listed on a California registry of persons investigated for child abuse even though the plaintiffs were exonerated some time after the initial accusations of child abuse. They challenged the state law, which requires listing persons in the registry who have been reported as child abusers and for whom the relevant state agency finds the allegations "not unfounded" even if the allegations are "inconclusive or unsubstantiated." The Ninth Circuit held the state law deprived the plaintiffs of constitutional rights by failing to include a procedural mechanism through which the plaintiffs could contest inclusion in the registry. Los Angeles County, who was sued along with the state attorney general and other local officials, argued it should not be liable for damages under § 1983 because it was state policy, not county policy, that deprived the plaintiffs of their rights. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for a unanimous court, applied Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and ruled that Monell's dictate that a municipality only be liable under §1983 where an injury is caused by a municipal "policy or custom" applies even when the plaintiffs are seeking prospective relief such as an injunction or a declaratory judgment. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 30, 2010 in Discrimination Law, Public Sector Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 29, 2010

Special Education Resources


AAIDD: The American Association on Individuals with Developmental Disabilities, founded in 1876, promotes research, progressive policies, and universal human rights for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Special Education: The Special Education site provides a number of articles and resources on all aspects of special education, including inclusion, classroom management, teaching strategies, and more.

Family Village: Family Village is a comprehensive resource for people with disabilities and their teachers and caregivers. The site includes information and links to other resources on all aspects of living with a disability.

Kinderart: Kinderart offers information on how educators can incorporate art projects into their lesson plans. The site presents detailed art projects as well as links to other resources for special education teachers.

LD Online: LD Online is a comprehensive site offering a variety of resources for special education teachers.

Students with Intellectual Disabilities, A Resource Guide for Teachers: This guide, presented by the British Columbia Ministry of Education, provides resources for teachers on teaching and understanding children with intellectual disabilities.


Autism Research Institute: Autism Research Institute is a worldwide network of professionals and parents concerned with Autism. The site offers resources for families, educators and caregivers.

Autism Society: Autism Society is the leading grassroots Autism organization. The organization promotes education, research and awareness for people with Autism.

Oasis@MAAP: This site provides information, training and resources for individuals, families and professionals concerned with autism.

Positively Autism: Positively Autism is a free e-magazine for teachers, parents and individuals with Autism. The magazine celebrates the accomplishments and contributions of people with autism, as well as positive media reports, success stories and more.

Tin Snips: Tin Snips is a resource offering techniques, ideas, activities and worksheets for teachers of students on the Autism spectrum.

Back to Top


Down Syndrome

Down Syndrome NSW: This website, of the Down Syndrome Association of New South Wales Australia, presents a number of resources on Autism for educators.

Down’s Syndrome Association: The Down’s Syndrome Association of the UK presents publications and resources for educators, including computer aided learning, lesson plans, inclusion strategies and more. This site offers support and interaction to parents, teachers and caregivers of people with Down Syndrome.

National Down Syndrome Society: The National Down Syndrome Society is the national advocate for the value, acceptance and inclusion of people with Down Syndrome. The site presents information on all aspects of living with, teaching and caring for people with Down Syndrome.

Up For Reading: Up For Reading present exercises and teaching techniques to help educators teach reading to Autistic students.


EENET: Enabling Education Network offers a variety of resources on inclusion for students with disabilities. The site includes articles, links to resources, and strategies for educators.

Including Samuel: Including Samuel is a project of the Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire, that seeks to build more inclusive schools and communities. The organization offers curriculum, training and outreach on inclusion.

Inclusive Communities: Inclusive Communities, presented by PBS, provides resources on how to improve the quality of life for people with mental and physical disabilities by encouraging inclusion and respect for differences.

Institute on Community Integration: The Institute on Community Integration at the University of Minnesota works to improve policies and practices to ensure that all people with disabilities are valued as contributing members of society.

National Inclusion Project: The National Inclusion Project seeks to bridge the gap between disabled young people and the world around them by partnering with inclusion projects and bringing awareness to the benefits of inclusion.

Paula Kluth: Paula Kluth presents ways to include children with disabilities through positive collaboration with school districts and communities 

Helpful Technology for the Classroom

CAST: CAST is a nonprofit organization that works to expand learning opportunities for all individuals, especially those with disabilities. The site includes information, resources, and lesson plan and curriculum generators for special education teachers.

DO-IT: Disabilities, Opportunities, Inter-networking, and Technology promotes the use of computer networking technologies for people with disabilities.

Family Village: Family Village is a comprehensive resource for people with disabilities and their teachers and caregivers. The site includes information and links to other resources on all aspects of living with a disability.

Teachers Helping Teachers, Special Education: This page presents activities for special education classrooms, written by teachers for teachers.

Teach-nology: Teachnology offers resources for teachers, both special education and mainstream. The site allows teachers to generate their own worksheets, lesson plans and more.

Hat Tip: Lauren Pacific Northwest Librarians



November 29, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Homeland Security Issued Final I-9 Regulations

In case you missed it, the Department of Homeland Security issued final regulations to provide that employers and recruiters or referrers for a fee who are required to complete and retain the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, may sign the form electronically and retain the form in an electronic format. The final rule makes minor changes to the interim final rule issued in 2006 and was effective August 23, 2010. 75 FR 42,575 (July 22, 2010).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 29, 2010 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Should a lawyer Accept a Temporary Job?

Our sister blog, Legal Skills Prof Blog (which is edited by Jim Levy who is a contributing editor of this blog) ran an interesting story on Nov. 23, 2010, which you have to read to believe. Jim cites to two sources who question whether an out of work lawyer should accept temporary work. The concern is that this type of work would not look good on a resume. Jim does not  comment on this; but I commented on his blog and will comment here. 

The worst thing on a resume is a gap because that implies that the person was fired. Whether that is true or not that is simply the implication. So, what is a person suppose to do? Getting a job as a temp shows that the person is willing to work and is not concerned with titles or form. 

Sure, no one wants to be in this situation; but given the economy many lawyers find themselves in this situation. The responsible thing to do is to try to get out of it anyway you can. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 28, 2010 in Lawyer Employment, Lawyers | Permalink | Comments (2)

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Adjunct Law Professor Bud Selig!!-Shame on Marquette Law School

Bud who? Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Baseball and former owner of the Brewers is now an adjunct professor of law at Marquette University Law School of Law. Only problem is that Selig is not a lawyer. Think he may have some connections? You can read about in the National Law Journal and at MSNBC.

I think this is a total disgrace to law professors and am disappointed in Marquette Law School. No doubt Mr. Selig is an accomplished professional and no doubt that he can be an asset to any school by an occasional lecture about some of his experiences. But it is quite another thing to teach a class to students learning to be lawyers and to evaluate students, i.e., grade them.  Law school is not business school and I am sorry to say that this appears to be a publicity stunt by Marquette Law School.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 


November 27, 2010 in Adjuncts in the News | Permalink | Comments (2)

Friday, November 26, 2010

Churchill Looses His Academic Freedom Appeal

Remember that Colorado Professor, Ward Churchill, who compared 9-11 Victims to Nazi war criminals. He was fired from the University of Colorado. He lost his academic freedom case and appeal it. On Nov. 24, 2010, the Colorado Court of Appeals in a 66 page decision, affirmed the decision below, here. The court summarized its holding up front as follows:

We are called upon to resolve questions concerning whether a university and its regents should be immune from a civil suit. Professor Ward Churchill appeals the trial court’s judgment (1) directing a verdict in favor of the University of Colorado and its Board of Regents and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that the University’s investigation of his academic works constituted an adverse employment action; (2) holding as a matter of law that the University was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, vacating the jury’s verdict, and entering judgment in favor of the University on his section 1983 claim that the University violated his First Amendment rights when it dismissed him; and (3) denying his motion for reinstatement, or alternatively, money damages.We affirm.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hat Tip: Legal Skills Prof Blog

Additionally, coverage from Denver Post here,  Chronicle of Higher Ed, Huffington Post

November 26, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Education Law Jobs

School Law Jobs
Job Title Employer Job Location
Legal Counsel Kyrene School District Tempe, Arizona
Labor & Employment Attorney Lozano Smith Fresno, California
Mid-Level/Senior Special Education Attorney Harbottle Law Group Orange County, California
Special Education Attorney Lozano Smith Fresno, California
School Law Attorney Brannan Legal Search Chicago, Illinois


November 26, 2010 in Lawyer Employment | Permalink | Comments (0)

ABA Accredition Standards and Tenure

The July 26, 2010 National Law Journal reported on a debate concerning ABA accredition standards. Should they require law schools to award tenure. As the article states:

The fight over law school tenure has been bubbling under the surface for years. The American Law Deans Association in 2006 submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Education calling for the removal of the ABA's authority to control which positions should be tenured, arguing that its requirements have become overly burdensome and restrictive, not to mention costly. 

The issue was thrust back into the spotlight this month when the ABA subcommittee released its draft changes. The timing of the release — which was made public three days before the larger Standards Review Committee met last weekend to discuss numerous proposals — prompted some criticism. CLEA President Robert Kuehn in a letter called the timing "troubling" because it left little opportunity for people to submit comments before the full committee took up the matter. 

The full committee discussed the tenure proposals last weekend but took no action. No final action is expected before 2012. 


All tenure does is require due process before an employee is disciplined. It is not a guarantee of life time employment. All employees need job protection. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 26, 2010 in Law Professors, Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Celebrity Litigants

The August 11, 2010 National Law Journal ran an interesting article about celebrity litigants which readers may find of interest, here. The article discusses recent legal victories of actor Sacha Baron Cohen, LaToya Jackson, among others.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 25, 2010 in Legal News | Permalink | Comments (1)

Confronting Co-employees Is Disqualifying Misconduct For Unemployment Purposes


Matter of Messado v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D___3d (3d Dep't. August 4, 2010), stands for the proposition that confronting co-employees in any angry manner can be disqualifying misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes. As the court explained: 


Threatening behavior toward a coworker has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Perkins [Commissioner of Labor], 16 AD3d 756, 756 [2005]; Matter of Rothstein [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 789, 789 [2003]). In the case at hand, two of the coworkers present at the restaurant testified that claimant approached them in an angry manner, told a male coworker that if he had anything to say about him to say it to his [*2]face and used vulgar language. They further stated that, before leaving the restaurant, claimant proceeded to challenge the male coworker to a fight. Both of these coworkers indicated that they were intimidated by claimant and feared for their safety. Their testimony was consistent with that of the supervisor to whom they reported the incident who further stated that claimant had engaged in similar confrontational behavior toward other employees for which he had been warned. Claimant himself admitted that he confronted the trio in the restaurant and used vulgar language, although he denied challenging the male coworker to a fight. To the extent that claimant's testimony was in conflict with the testimony of the other witnesses, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Rothstein [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d at 790). In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct.
Mitchell H. Rubinstein


November 25, 2010 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Plagiarism On Line

Lines on Plagiarism Blur is an interesting Aug. 1, 2010 NY Times article. It is about how students of today do not realize that there is plagiarism on the internet. As the article states:


And at the University of Maryland, a student reprimanded for copying from Wikipedia in a paper on the Great Depression said he thought its entries — unsigned and collectively written — did not need to be credited since they counted, essentially, as common knowledge.

Professors used to deal with plagiarism by admonishing students to give credit to others and to follow the style guide for citations, and pretty much left it at that.

But these cases — typical ones, according to writing tutors and officials responsible for discipline at the three schools who described the plagiarism — suggest that many students simply do not grasp that using words they did not write is a serious misdeed.

It is a disconnect that is growing in the Internet age as concepts of intellectual property, copyright and originality are under assault in the unbridled exchange of online information, say educators who study plagiarism.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 23, 2010 in Misc., Legal | Permalink | Comments (15)

Monday, November 22, 2010

Elkouri & Elkouri 2010 Supp Is Out

The 2010 Supplement for How Arbitration Works is out, here. This treatise has long been the bible on labor arbitration and is a must for every labor and employment library as well as for lawyers who practice in this area.  Its available for $205, but if your an ABA member, there is a 60% discount on that price. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


November 22, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Individual ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if compensation exceeds the highest benefit rate applicable during relevant “effective days”


Robinson v Commissioner of Labor, 2010 NY Slip Op 06272, decided on July 29, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

A claimant for unemployment insurance benefits is eligible to be paid for an accumulation of "effective days" of unemployment, provided that no effective days may be accumulated in any week in which he or she is paid compensation exceeding the highest benefit rate applicable.

Jonathon Robinson applied for unemployment insurance benefits but his claim was rejected by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board based on its finding that Robinson received an average weekly wage "far above the maximum weekly benefit rate of $405" and, as a result, “he did not accumulate effective days for those weeks.”

Robinson had been employed as a lecturer at Cornell University for the summer sessions in 2006 and 2007, teaching a class two days per week. He received a flat fee of $9,360 for the summer 2006 session, representing an average weekly wage of $1,560, and a flat fee of $9,780 for the summer 2007 session, representing an average weekly wage of $1,630. 

Paid on a semimonthly basis, Robinson applied for unemployment benefits for those weeks in which he did not receive a paycheck, certifying that he had earned less than the maximum weekly benefit rate of $405.

Ultimately it was determined that Robinson was ineligible to receive benefits on the basis that he earned over the statutory limitation for those weeks for which he had claimed entitlement to benefits. He was charged with a recoverable total overpayment of $1,504.75 and, in addition, his right to receive future benefits by 64 effective days on the basis that he had made willful false statements to obtain benefits.

Robinson appealed these determinations by the Board.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board’s decision, commenting that “A claimant is eligible to be paid for an accumulation of ‘effective days" of unemployment, provided that no effective days may be accumulated in any week in which a claimant is paid compensation exceeding the highest benefit rate applicable’ … Here, the record reflects, and claimant admits, that he received an average weekly wage far above the maximum weekly benefit rate of $405 and, therefore, the determination by the Board that he did not accumulate effective days for those weeks is supported by substantial evidence and has a reasonable basis in law.”

As to the Board's finding that Robinson “made willful misrepresentations to obtain benefits,” the Appellate Division concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

The decisions reports that Robinson had conceded that he had received and read the unemployment insurance benefits handbook. Accordingly, said the court, the Board could reasonably find that, regardless of his communications with representatives of the Department of Labor, the language in the handbook addressing a claimant's ineligibility for benefits was clear and unambiguous. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


November 22, 2010 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 21, 2010

An individual must prove his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” in order to prevail at a “name-clearing hearing”

Casale v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2010 NY Slip Op 06218, decided on July 27, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department

Nicholas Casale, claiming that certain statements in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's letter to him terminating his employment* characterizing his actions as “dishonest” were false, demanded a name-clearing hearing.**

The hearing officer ruled that Casale was required to prove that the Authority’s statements to which he objected were false by a preponderance of the evidence and that Casale failed to meet this test.

The hearing officer found that Casle had repeatedly mischaracterized his source of information in an investigation of corruption as a confidential informant, concluding that “this conduct was dishonest.”

The Appellate Division said that such a determination by a hearing officer is not foreclosed as a matter of law even if the hearing officer believed that Casale was acting to benefit the Authority rather than for his own personal gain. The court said that the hearing officer is to determine the issue of an employee's dishonesty “with reference to the employer's general business or the employee's own functions and that is precisely what occurred here.”

Nor, said the court, did the hearing officer exceed his jurisdiction in "finding that petitioner engaged in a pattern of dishonesty." The terms of the stipulation governing the name-clearing hearing did not limit the inquiry to the fabrication of the existence of a confidential informant.

 Although Casale’s tenure status is not indicated in the decision, typically New York courts have directed "name-clearing hearings" for probationary employees and for employee without tenure who allege that they have been "stigmatized" as a result of “State action” and the employer has made such "stigmatizing" information public.

 A name clearing hearing serves only one purpose - to provide the individual with an opportunity to clear his or her “good name and reputation” in situations where he or she alleges that information of a stigmatizing nature has been made public by his or her former employer. Courts have held that the internal disclosure of allegedly stigmatizing reasons for the discharge or demotion of an employee to the individual and, or, to agency administrators “having a right to know” does not constitute a public disclosure of such information and thus a name-clearing hearing" is not required because of such intra-agency communications.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


November 21, 2010 in Public Sector Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Threating Co-worker Is Disqualifying Misconduct For Unemployment Purposes

Sometimes it is important to state the obvious. Being discharged for threatening a co-worker is misconduct. A worker who is discharged for misconduct is not eligible for unemployment. Matter of Ponce v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D.3d___(3rd Dep't. July 29, 2010). 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 20, 2010 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 19, 2010

School Law Jobs

School Law Jobs
Job Title Employer Job Location
Legal Counsel Kyrene School District Tempe, Arizona
Labor & Employment Attorney Lozano Smith Fresno, California
Mid-Level/Senior Special Education Attorney Harbottle Law Group Orange County, California
Special Education Attorney Lozano Smith Fresno, California
School Law Attorney Brannan Legal Search Chicago, Illinois


November 19, 2010 in Lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The controlling statute of limitations for filing an Article 78 petition challenging an administrative decision may be set out in another law

Hayes v City of NY Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs., 2010 NY Slip Op 20289, Decided on July 20, 2010, Supreme Court, New York County, Judge Alexander W. Hunter

New York City Fire Captain Robert Hayes applied for and took the Promotion to Battalion Chief Examination No. 8511.

The Test Validation Board rating this examination initially advised the candidates that it proposed the correct answers to questions 15, 46, and 85 as A, A, and D, respectively, Hayes had selected these as correct answers to these questions. However, the final determination by the Test Validation Board allowed A, B, C, and D as correct answers for each of the three questions.

Hayes objected to the Board’s decision, contending that in allowing A, B, C, and D to be deemed correct answers for each of these questions rather allowing only alternate answers that were as good as or better than the proposed answers upon protest, the Board effectively deleted the three questions thereby exceeding its authority under Civil Service Law §50-a.

Judge Hunter dismissed Hayes’ Article 78 petition seeking to vacate the Board’s final decision as untimely. Although Hayes had filed his petition within the “four month statute of limitations” typically applicable in challenging an administrative determination, in this instance §50-a required that such a petition had to be filed within thirty days “of service of the notice of availability of the determination of the test validation board upon the protesting candidate….”

In the words of the court, “Hayes was given notice of the validation board's determination on December 17, 2009 and did not file a petition under Article 78 until April 12, 2010, nearly four months later, and nearly three months after the 30-day requirement as set forth in Civil Service Law § 50-a. Therefore, this petition is outside of the statute of limitations and is hereby dismissed.”

As to Hayes’ argument that the time limits set out in §50-a did not apply in this instance, Judge Hunter explained that although “The purpose of an Article 78 proceeding, utilizing C.P.L.R. §7803[3] as this case does specifically, is to permit the aggrieved candidate an opportunity to argue why the determination of the administrative agency was ‘made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion .’ … This is precisely the issue at bar and within the scope of Civil Service Law §50-a.”

N.B. Exceptions to “the ususal” statutes of limitations are sometimes set out in law. For example, although an Article 75 petition seeking to confirm or vacate an arbitration award “must be filed ninety days after its delivery,” Education Law Section 3020-a(5) requires that an Article 75 petition challenging the arbitration award resulting from a Section 3020-a disciplinary hearing to be filed “Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision” in order to be timely.

* Civil Service Law §50-a authorizes “test validation boards” to determine the correct scoring of civil service examinations for positions in the competitive class within the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Personnel and provides that “the test validation board shall make a determination whether the answers elected by the protesting candidates are as good as or better than the proposed key answers or whether the rating guide should be modified and shall give reasons therefor in an opinion in writing.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 18, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (1)

St. John's Center For Labor And Employment Law-Save The Dates

SJU Labor Center

I am delighted to inform you about the following events that are being sponsored by St. John's Law School, Center for Labor and Employment Law. Labor scholars and practicing labor and employment lawyers may find this information and conferences particularly useful. Click here for a Save the Date Card  Download SJU Save Date Cambridge

1.  February 2, 2011- The Intersections of National Security, Public Safety and Health, Immigration, and Labor and Employment Law (Location St. John's Law School 5:30 pm) 

This looks like a wonderful conference. A Commissioner of Health, a former New York Director of Homeland Security, former federal prosecutors and a sitting federal judge are all confirmed speakers. 

For further click Download SJU National Security 

2. March 18, 19, 2011-The Theology of Work and The Dignity of Workers Conference (Location St. John's Law School)

This conference has a wonderful group of confirmed speakers including the President of the NYS Central Labor Council, NYU Professor Sam Estreicher, UNITE HERE President John Wilhelm and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Scholarly papers are being solicited for this conference.

For further details click Download SJU Theology of Work call for participation 11 18 2010 

3.July 20, 2011-July 22, 2011-Employment Dispute Resolution Systems Across The Globe (Location Cambridge University, Cambridge England)

This conference looks to be unbelievable. Some of the confirmed speakers include Ted St. Antoine, former President of the National Academy of Arbitrators and Michigan Law Professor, NYU Professor Sam Estreicher, Texas Professor Jack Getman, Prof. Bill Gould, former NLRB Chairperson as well as a host of other attorneys and speakers. Scholarly papers are being solicited for this conference. 

For further details click  Download SJU cambridge program in progress 11 16 2010 (1) 

In the last 7 years, I have gone to most of the conferences sponsored by St. John's Law School, including one that was sponsored in London England. They are simply wonderful. David Gregory the conference director is a wonderful speaker, a good friend and an excellent host. If you want to write a paper, you may have the opportunity for it to be published in the law review or in another scholarly journal. Most importantly, in addition to learning a great deal about the law, these conferences are simply fun. I look forward to see you. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 18, 2010 in Conferences, CLE, Conferences, Faculty | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Discharged Muslim employee failed to make out claims of religious bias

A Muslim employee of Indian descent who lost his accommodation of using accumulated vacation time to leave work an hour early on Fridays to attend Muslim religious services after the hospital he worked for changed ownership. Thus, he  was unable to pursue his Title VII and Florida law religious bias claims. Mohamed v Public Health Trust of Miami Dade County, ____F. Supp. 2d____(S.D. Fla, July 19, 2010).  However, the employee was able to proceed with his claim alleging the employer retaliated against him for having requested a reasonable accommodation to practice his religion because the employer failed to address this reprisal claim in its motion for summary judgment.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

November 17, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)