Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Fifth Circuit Holds Lactation Discrimination is Unlawful Sex Discrimination

 The Fifth Circuit held unanimously that firing a woman because she is lactating or expressing milk is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978).  Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect working women against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition. A copy of a May 31, 2013 EEOC Press Release describing this case is available here.

Law review commentary on this issue would be most welcome.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 30, 2013 in Employment Discrimination | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Employee terminated following a disciplinary hearing after receiving counseling memoranda regarding serious and specific deficiencies in her job performance

Kuznia v Adams2013 NY Slip Op 03369, Appellate Division, Third Department
An individual [Petitioner] commenced her employment with the County Probation Department in 1979 and in 2004 was named as the Department's deputy director. When the Department’s director retired, Petitioner “effectively was in charge of the Department” until a new director was named in August 2010.

Although prior to serving as the Department's deputy director Petitioner had consistently received positive performance evaluations,* in March 2010 the County Administrator sent Petitioner a "letter of counseling" raising a number of concerns regarding her leadership, supervisory and time-management skills. Petitioner was encouraged to "immediately make every effort to improve [her] management skills" and was warned that her failure to do so could result in a loss of her employment.
In October 2010, Petitioner received a second counseling notification — this time in the form of a memorandum from the newly appointed director. The director noted, among other things, Petitioner's  failure to timely submit various state-mandated reports and surveys to the Department's oversight agency.
Subsequently it was found that there were significant past deficiencies and omissions in the operation of the Department during Petitioner's tenure as deputy director and  was served with disciplinary charges in March 2011 pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 alleging various acts of misconduct. The Hearing Officer sustained the bulk of the charges and specifications filed against Petitioner and recommended Petitioner's "dismissal from service [as] the only viable solution."

The County Administrator adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation and terminated Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner appealed, challenging the County Administrator’s decision and asked the court to direct her reinstatement as deputy director of the Department with back pay.
The Appellate Division affirmed the County Administrator’s determination, explaining that "[T]he standard of review to be applied in reviewing an administrative determination made pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.”
The Appellate Division noted that [1] Credibility determinations solely within the province of the Hearing Officer and that it may neither substitute its own judgment for that of the Hearing Officer nor weigh the evidence presented and [2] a finding of incompetence only requires evidence of some dereliction or neglect of duty.
As to the issue of penalty, the Appellate Division said that it was “well settled” that it would set aside the penalty imposed "only if it is so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness."
Despite the Appellate Division's considering Petitioner's many years of service and her prior positive performance evaluations, the court said that it did not find the penalty of termination to be shocking to its sense of fairness, explaining that in this instance “the record reflects that although Petitioner twice was warned regarding serious and specific deficiencies in her job performance, she continued to exercise poor professional judgment with respect to, among other things, the management, training and supervision of [Department personnel].
Further said the court, “The record … illustrates that Petitioner's neglect of her duties — particularly with respect to her failure to implement certain policies and/or comply with mandated reporting requirements — not only created what [Department’s director] aptly described as ‘a huge public safety issue,’ but also exposed the County to liability.” 

* According to the decision, written performance evaluations of the Petitioner ceased after 2004 because the then County Administrator “preferred to personally conduct yearly evaluations in his office.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_03369.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 27, 2013 in Arbitration Law, Public Sector Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

EEOC Updates Guidance Documents on Disablity Discrimination

On May 15, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued updates to four 
informal  “Question and Answer” guidance documents relating to protections against disability 
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Each of the guidance documents, 
which are available on the EEOC’s website, focuses on a different condition (cancer, diabetes, 
epilepsy and intellectual disabilities) and, according  to the EEOC, reflect changes made 
by the ADA Amendments Act .
A copy of the revised guidance documents can be found here. An EEOC May 15, 2013 Press Release 
describing these changes can be found here.
Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 25, 2013 in Employment Discrimination | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Hostile Environment Cases Under Title VII, 1981 and NY Human Rights Law Are Subject To Same Standards

Sanchez-Vazquez v. Rochester City School District, ___F.3d___ (2d Cir. May 14, 2013), is an important case because the 2d Circuit holds that hostile work environment cases under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and the NYS Human Rights Law are all analyzed under the same standards. The case also demonstrates that it is difficult to make out a cause of action if only a few offensive comments were made over a period of years.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 23, 2013 in Employment Discrimination, Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, June 21, 2013

Recent Wage Act Decisions by the Massachusetts Courts

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and an Appeals Court recently issued two separate decisions interpreting certain aspects of the Massachusetts Wage Act, which allows employees to seek relief against their employer and certain officers of the employer for nonpayment of wages.  

In first decision, Cook v. Patient Edu, LLC (decision here), the SJC held that managers of LLCs can be held liable individually for unpaid wages under the Wage Act. Specifically, a “manager who 'controls, directs, and participates to a substantial degree in formulating and determining' the financial policy of a business entity may be a 'person having employees in his service' under G.L. c. 149, § 148, and thus may be subject to liability for violations of the Wage Act,” [citations omitted].

The issue before the Court was whether the legislative intent was to include managers of LLCs in the group of possible violators of the Wage Act, and the Court found that it did. The Court found a clear legislative intent to hold all individuals who contribute to a business's fiscal and employment policies responsible for how employees are treated.

In second decision, Dow v. Casale (decision here), a Massachusetts Appeals Court held that an employee’s private right of action under the  Wage Act did apply in the case of a traveling salesman who rarely set foot in Mass. This choice of law case basically states that where the Commonwealth has a close connection to the employment relationship of the parties, local law should be applied to the claim.

In this case the plaintiff worked as a salesperson for a Delaware corporation that had its a sole place of business in Massachusetts.  He resided in Florida and conducted most of his sales activity across the country. When the company closed its doors, it terminated his employment with significant commissions outstanding.  The question here was whether Massachusetts law would apply given that the plaintiff rarely visited the state.

The Court found that the nature of the plaintiff's work was such that only Massachusetts was tied to it. Factors examined by the Court include the governing law provisions in the plaintiff's employment agreement, the contact address used on the plaintiff's business cards, the location from which paychecks were issued, how often he traveled to the head office in Mass, and that he worked out of the same cubicle (albeit unassigned to him) when he was onsite.  

While distinguishing a case cited by the defendant where the Wage Act was not applied to an Australian employee operating outside the United States, importantly, the Court did acknowledge that the application of the Wage Act may be different in the case on a non-US employee.

 

Dimitry Herman

Adjunct Law Professor

New England School of Law

 

June 21, 2013 in Employers, Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Where there is broad arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator rather than the court is to determine if the subject of the dispute is arbitrable

Ontario County v County Sheriff's Unit 7850-01, CSEA, Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO), 2013 NY Slip Op 03204, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
The Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] between Ontario County and the Ontario County Sheriff's Unit 7850-01 provided that disputes over the meaning or application of the CBA were initially required to be submitted through the contract's grievance process. In the event the employee was "not satisfied" with the result obtained through that process, the Unit could submit the matter to arbitration .
The Ontario County Sheriff's Unit 7850-01 [Unit] filed grievances on behalf of two correction officers whose request for a shift exchange was denied. Contending that the denial "[v]iolated or [i]nvolved" the clause in the CBA that addressed "time exchanged between employees," the Unit informed County of its intent to seek arbitration. 
The County thereupon filed a petition in Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR Article 75 to stay arbitration and the Unit "cross-moved" to compel arbitration.
Supreme Court denied the County’s petition and granted the Unit’s cross motion.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling, noting that “A grievance may be submitted to arbitration only where the parties agree to arbitrate that kind of dispute, and where it is lawful for them to do so." In this instance,” said the court, “the parties do not challenge the lawfulness of arbitrating the instant dispute and, instead, [the County contends] that there is no valid agreement to arbitrate the grievances at issue inasmuch as the CBA did not contemplate shift exchanges."
The Appellate Division rejected the County’s argument, explaining that in determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue a court’s review “is limited to the language of the grievance and the demand for arbitration, as well as to the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom"
In this instance, said the court, there is “a broad arbitration clause and a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the parties.” Accordingly, the court decided that the was arbitrable and it was left to the arbitrator to make “a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the [CBA], and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law
Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 20, 2013 in Arbitration Law, Public Sector Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

An employee’s satisfying the employer’s residency requirement is critical to his or her continuation in employment

2013 NY Slip Op 03230, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
The City of Niagara Falls’ Local Law No. 7 requires City employees to establish and maintain residency within the City throughout the term of their employment. "Residency" for the purposes of this action was defined as "the actual principal place of residence of an individual, where he or she normally sleeps; normally maintains personal and household effects; the place listed as an address on voter registration; and the place listed as his or her address for driver's license and motor vehicle registration, if any."*
The City determined that one of its employees [Petitioner] principally resided outside the City in the Town of Niagara. Concluding that Petitioner did not comply with its residency policy, the City terminated her employment.
Petitioner challenged the City’s decision. Supreme Court granted her petition and directed the City to reinstate her to her former position. The Appellate Division disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling and vacated its decision.
The Appellate Division found that the evidence relied upon by the City was sufficient to establish that Petitioner's "actual principal place of residence" was in the Town of Niagara [Niagara] and thus outside the city limits of the City of Niagara Falls.
The evidence presented to the City included an investigative report indicating that Petitioner resided at the Niagara residence, the address of the Niagara residence was listed on Petitioner's joint tax return with her husband, Petitioner's signature appeared on a recent mortgage application for the Niagara residence, Petitioner's husband and children resided at the Niagara residence and Petitioner’s children attend school in the Niagara-Wheatfield School District.
In addition, said the Appellate Division, “a surveillance company observed Petitioner on multiple occasions driving to work from the Niagara residence early in the morning and driving from work to the Niagara residence at the end of the work day, "whereupon she would retrieve the mail and park in the garage."
Petitioner had testified that she resided at a City address and that the City address was listed on various documents, including her voter registration records and her driver's license. Notwithstanding such testimony, the Appellate Division concluded that such "evidence was not so overwhelming as to support the [Supreme] court's determination granting [her] petition."
Citing Beck-Nichols v Bianco, 20 N.Y.3d 540,** a case involving a school district employee’s failure to comply with the district’s residence requirement, the Appellate Division said that under the "extremely deferential standard" of review applicable in Petitioner’s case, it concluded that the City's determination that Petitioner principally resides outside the City is not “without foundation in fact,” and thus the City had "rationally concluded that [Petitioner] did not comply with the residency policy."
The court then reversed Supreme Court's decision "on the law" and the dismissed the City's former employee’s petition.
* The Appellate Division noted that this “definition [of residence] is akin to, if not synonymous with, the legal concept of ‘domicile,’ i.e., ‘living in [a] locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.’”
** NYPPL’s summary of Beck-Nichols is posted on the Internet at:http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2013/02/court-of-appeals-holds-that-residency.html
The City of Niagara Falls decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_03230.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 18, 2013 in Public Sector Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Refusal of Suitable Offer of Employment Leads To Unemployment Disqualification

Matter of Neuman v. Commissioner of Labor, ____A.D. 3d___(3d Dep't. April 18, 2013), illustrates an important point. As the court explained:

 "A claimant who refuses to accept a job for which he or she is reasonably suited by training and experience will be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits" (Matter of Schirra [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Southern-Penn [Commissioner of Labor], 83 AD3d 1318, 1319 [2011]). Here, the record confirms that claimant was qualified for the job offered to him and the position paid the prevailing wage (see Matter of Schirra [Commissioner of [*2]Labor], 45 AD3d at 1068). As for claimant's rejection of the job offer due to its location, "dissatisfaction with the length of one's commute does not constitute good cause for rejecting an otherwise suitable offer of employment" (Matter of Pelle [Commissioner of Labor], 12 AD3d 750, 751 [2004]; see Matter of Cunningham [Commissioner of Labor], 19 AD3d 980, 980 [2005]). Notably, claimant admitted receiving the unemployment insurance handbook explaining his obligations regarding reasonable commuting distances under these circumstances.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 16, 2013 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Legal Search Engine

I recently came across freeality.com which is an interesting legal search engine. Check it out.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 15, 2013 in Legal Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Android Apps For Lawyers

Sui Generis recently published an interesting article about Android Apps for lawyers. This article will be very useful to lawyers like me who cannot live without an Android Smartphone. My current choice, by the way, is the Samsung Galaxy Note 2. As the article states:

For conducting free legal research on the fly, look no further than the Fastcase app. Another great resource is dLaw, which provides free access to federal statutes and rules along with access to Google Scholar’s legal research capabilities, and also offers paid access to various state statutes and rules.

For a functional legal dictionary, there’s LawGuide. Another great resource is the NYSBA’s ethics app, which provides full, searchable access to all New York ethics opinions.

For specific practice area tools, there’s Karl’s Mortgage, a mortgage amortization app and QuickTax, an app that is chock full of tax-related information.

Picture it Settled is an app that is currently free, although that may start charging an access fee down the road. This app aids in settlement negotiations by using predictive analytics — including vast amounts of settlement data — to assist lawyers during negotiations.

And of course, there are apps devoted to legislative and Supreme Court topics, including We the People (the full text of the U.S. Constitution), Congress (everything you ever wanted to know about Congress and pending bills), and PocketJustice (everything you ever wanted to know about the U.S. Supreme Court).

If a mobile office is what you seek, the following apps will help you achieve that goal. First, there’s Documents to Go, which is a great, albeit somewhat pricey ($24.95), word processing app that allows you to create Word documents.

Hat Tip: New York Public Personnel Law

June 13, 2013 in Lawyers, Legal Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

Judge removed from his position for cause notwithstanding his earlier resignation from the position

A former Judge [Judge] appealed a determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in which the Commission had sustained a single charge of judicial misconduct against him and determined that he should be removed from office (see NYS Constitution, Article VI, §22; Judiciary Law §44[1]).
The Judge had earlier resigned from his position after admitting to certain conduct that he characterized as “indefensible” that occurred 40 years earlier.
Notwithstanding the Judge’s resignation, the Commission continued the proceeding and ultimately sustained the charge*and ordered Judge’s removal, finding that his admission, standing alone provided a sufficient basis for the determination.**
Citing Matter of Going, 97 NY2d 121 and Matter of Aldrich, 58 NY2d 279, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s action, explaining that it measures “the necessity for removal ‘with due regard to the fact that judges must be held to a higher standard of conduct than the public at large’ as even ‘relatively slight improprieties subject the judiciary as a whole to public criticism and rebuke, it is essential that we consider’ the effect of the Judge's conduct on and off the Bench upon public confidence in his [or her] character and judicial temperament."

The Court said that it agreed with the Commission that Hedges' admissions, by themselves, were sufficient to warrant the finding of judicial misconduct. The admitted conduct undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and therefore, said the court, rendered Hedges unfit for judicial office.
Noting that “[I]t is troubling that the petition is based solely on conduct that occurred 40 years ago —- 13 years before [Hedges] was elevated to the bench,” the Court of Appeals said that the misconduct alleged is grave by any standard.
Accordingly, said the court, the determined sanction of removal should be accepted and Judge removed from the office of Judge.
* Two Commission members dissented in part on the ground that Judge had removed himself from his judgeship by resigning and that his post-resignation removal proceedings "served no purpose" in this case.
** Similarly, 4 NYCRR 5.3(b) of the State Civil Service Commission’s Rules, which applies to employees of the State as the employer, provides, in pertinent part, “…when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against an employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his termination shall be recorded as a dismissal rather than as a resignation.” Many local civil service commissions have adopted a similar provision.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law
Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 13, 2013 in Employment Law, Judges | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

SDNY Circuit Issues Major Decision On Unpaid Interns

Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, ____F.Supp.2d____(S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2013), is a major FLSA decision concerning the status of unpaid interns. At issue were interns who worked on the movie 'Blank Swan." In a lengthly and well reasoned decision, the court holds that the interns were employees. Of note is that the court approved of the Department of Labor's multiple factor test to examine whether interns are employees. There is also an extensive discussion of joint employment and the statute of limitations. A claim was also sucessfully brought under New York Law.

There are relatively few reported decisions concerning the status of unpaid interns. While this was an FLSA case, it will be interesting to see if the same analysis is applied under other employment statutes such as Title VII or even the NLRA, which apply different tests for employee status. 

Law review commentary is always welcome on this developing issue.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hat Tip: Workplace Prof Blog

June 12, 2013 in Employment Law, Law Review Ideas | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

New Workplace Law Blog In Town

Check out Outsourcing Justice a new Workplace Law Blog by a law professor. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hat Tip: Workplace Prof Blog

 

 

June 11, 2013 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 10, 2013

"An Existential Threat"

Rutgers-Camden School of Law enrolled 282 first-year students in 2011.  In 2012, the school only enrolled 116.  A recession in the legal employment market and a failed merger receives the blame.  The Philadelphia Business Journal's Jeff Blumenthal has the full story.

Craig Estlinbaum

June 10, 2013 in Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Supremes Reaffirm Deference Due to Arbitrators

The Supreme Court ruled today that an arbitrator did not exceed his authority under the FAA when he found an arbitration agreement allowed class arbitration.  While not a labor case, it follows the Trilogy and a long line of cases deferring to arbitration. Oxford Health v. Sutter, ____U.S.____(June 10, 2013). 

June 10, 2013 in Arbitration Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Agency required to comply with its own procedures in processing a disciplinary action

Hassan v New York City Dept. of Correction2013 NY Slip Op 02686, Appellate Division, First Department
In this appeal of a CPLR Article 78 decision by Supreme Court that sustained the New York City Department of Correction’s [DOC] finding that the individual [Appellant] was guilty of certain charges, the Appellant conceded that the Hearing Officer’s determination was supported by substantial evidence.
Rather, Appellant contended, the record before the Supreme Court was defective because it was incomplete in that it lacked a record of the disciplinary hearing, DOC’s answer, and a written statement by a Correction Officer that the Hearing Officer was required to show Appellant as required by “DOC Directive 6500R-B(III)(C)(25) and (26).”
The Appellate Division agreed, explaining that “it cannot be determined on this record whether the Hearing Officer's failure to show [Appellant] the written statement by [the Correction Officer] prejudiced Appellant's defense.
Accordingly, said the court, it was remanding the matter to Supreme Court and directed DOC “to submit an answer pursuant to CPLR 7804(d) and any appropriate submissions pursuant to CPLR 7804(e), including a record of the hearing and a written witness statement [by the Correction Officer].”
The ruling further provides that after DOC made such submissions to Supreme Court, Supreme Court is to determine if the failure to provide Appellant with these writings “was harmless error.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_02686.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

June 9, 2013 in Public Sector Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, June 7, 2013

New In Print: Law Review Reviews

The May 2013, Iowa Law Review includes xclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials by Gregory Dolan, M.D., Marriage, Biology, and Federal Benefits
by Courtney G. Joslin, Fee Effects by Kathryn Judge, and Insuring Against a Derivative Disaster: The Case for Decentralized Risk Management, by Jeffrey Manns.

The May 2013, University of Pennsylvania Law Review includes articles from the October 2012, symposium, "The Evolving Internet," with articles by Stuart Minor Benjamin (Duke), Tim Wu (Columbia), Dan L. Burk (UC-Irvine), Justin "Gus" Hurwitz (Penn), Paul M. Schwartz (UC-Berkeley), Howard A. Shelanski (FTC, Georgetown), and Christopher S. Yoo (Penn).

There have been other symposium editions released in recent weeks:

Craig Estlinbaum

June 7, 2013 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Legal Writing Workshop in Philadelphia in June 2014

This free one-day workshop will explore how legal writing faculty can collaborate with clinics, non-profits, and pro bono projects to expand experiential learning opportunities for students by bringing social justice practice experience into legal writing teaching. 

Many legal writing faculty expand skills training by creating partnerships with public interest organizations, clinics, pro bono programs, and externships. The workshop will be a forum for discussion of specific collaborations that workshop participants have undertaken or hope to launch. The projects can be full-blown courses, short-term collaborations on discrete projects, incremental collaborations among faculty, or ideas for future partnerships. They can take place within the required legal writing curriculum, in upper-division courses, or in conjunction with pro bono, externship, or clinical programs.

The workshop will provide a platform for sharing ideas and continuing to develop a community around enriching students’ educational experiences through public interest collaborations that offer opportunities for experiential learning.

Additional information can be found by clicking downloading the following document  Download Bringing Outside In WorkshopAnnouncement and Call for Proposa (1)

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 


June 6, 2013 in Conferences, Faculty | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Seto on JD Job Prospects, etc.

Theodore P. Seto (Loyola-L.A.) has a blog post at TaxProf Blog on job prospects for near-term J.D. graduates and Dan Filler at The Faculty Lounge added comments of his own.

Craig Estlinbaum

June 5, 2013 in Blogs, Faculty, Law Schools, Lawyer Employment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Best and Worst Places to Look For A Law Job

Jordan Weissmann at The Atlantic has posted an article that purports to reveal the best and place regions and states to look for a law job, measured by law graduates per job opening.  According to the study, the best region to look for a law job is the Rocky Mountain states; the worst is New England, followed closely by the Great Lakes region.  The worst state to look for a job is Mississippi, with over 10 graduates per opening.  The best? -- Alaska, the only state with no law school.

Craig Estlinbaum

June 5, 2013 in Current Affairs, Law Schools, Lawyer Employment | Permalink | Comments (0)