Monday, July 16, 2018
Tenure-Track Assistant or Associate Professor Position in Conflict Resolution
The ILR School at Cornell University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in the area of conflict/dispute resolution at either the Assistant Professor or Associate Professor level, to begin August 2019. Applicants should have research and teaching interests related to topics such as arbitration, mediation, negotiation, conflict management, dispute resolution, collective action, and social movements. We are open to scholars using qualitative, quantitative, legal, and mixed methods, and studying conflict at various levels of analysis including societal, organizational, group, or individual. Applicants should have a doctorate (PhD or JD) in a relevant field, such as industrial relations, organizational behavior, law, psychology, sociology, or management. A successful candidate’s appointment will be in either the Department of Labor Relations, Law, and History or the Department of Organizational Behavior. Faculty in these departments publish in top-tier journals in their field, such as ILR Review, Industrial Relations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Psychological Science, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, and in major law reviews. Evidence of very strong research and teaching potential is essential. Review of applications will begin October 1, 2018. Questions about this position can be directed to Professor Alex Colvin (firstname.lastname@example.org), Professor Harry Katz (email@example.com), Professor Marya Besharov (firstname.lastname@example.org), Professor Pam Tolbert (email@example.com), or Professor Kate Griffith (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Lost in the shuffle of the latter part of the Supreme Court's term this year was Lucia v. SEC. In that case, the Court held that ALJs are "Officers of the United States" that must be appointed by the president or agency heads. In response, the Administration recently issued an executive order requiring ALJs to be hired by the respective agencies, rather than a central pool maintained by OPM. Although some fear that this will inject more politics into ALJ selection, it seems like an obvious move after Lucia.
It's unclear the extent to which this affects workplace agencies. For instance, my understanding is that the NLRB already follows a hiring procedure that would pass muster under Lucia. I believe the case is similar from safety ALJs, like those under MSHA and OSHA. Indeed, it's not a certainty that Lucia would apply to all of these ALJs, as that holding was limited to ALJs who carry out important duties with significant discretion (although my sense is that they would meet this threshold).
This all may be a nothing-burger, but it's worth keeping an eye on.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
Jon Harkavy (Patterson Harkavy) sends word of Strothers v. City of Laurel, Maryland, downloadable here, a Fourth Circuit decision handed down last Friday. The case involves a Title VII retaliation claim against a public employer based on a complaint of racial harassment. Judge Gregory's opinion for the panel reversed a district court's dismissal of the claim.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Just a quick reminder that registration for COSELL XIII closes on August 20: Registration is currently still available here!!!
The Thirteenth Annual Colloquium On Scholarship in Employment and Labor Law (COSELL) will be held at the University of South Carolina School of Law in Columbia, South Carolina. We are celebrating our move into a completely new legal facility, and we look forward to you joining us for the conference from the evening of Thursday, September 27th through the afternoon of Saturday, September 29th, 2018. Information on registration, the conference hotel, and participating in the conference is available here. Registration for the conference hotel is also now available online, and can be completed here.
We look forward to seeing everyone in South Carolina in a couple of months, and please let me know if you have any questions about the registration process.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
The Supreme Court has just released its decision in Janus v. AFSCME. I’m not typically the best predictor of what the Court will do, but even I had this one called from the moment Justice Gorsuch was confirmed. The Court, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Alito, overruled its own Abood decision to hold that public-sector union fees are unconstitutional. I won’t repeat how we got to this point (although you can start at my earlier post on the Janus oral argument, which has links on the aborted Friedrichs case, as well as our coverage of 2014’s Harris v. Quinn, in which Alito made clear where he wanted to go on this issue), but the upshot is that public-sector unions nationwide must now operate on an opt-in basis for all union contributions—even contributions that go to core collective-representation services. In other words, the free rider issue that exists for the private sector in right-to-work states now exists for all public-sector workplaces.
The basis for the decision is that dissenting employees’ have a 1stAmendment right not to pay any funds to the union representing them—even for collective bargaining and other work that goes to the benefit of all unit employees. This follows the dicta in Harris, but is a clear departure from the Court’s public-sector employment jurisprudence, which does not look favorably on individual employees' 1st Amendment claims. In particular, if this case didn’t involve unions, you would expect the Court to hold that concerns about dues paid to a third party are not matters of public concern. This result, to my mind, is the culmination of several related factors: in addition to the strong pro-business bent of this Court, we’ve seen public-sector unions becoming more powerful than their private-sector counterparts, while also becoming strongly aligned with one political party. This has occurred during a period of time in which political antagonism is on the rise and we’ve more jurists appear willing to join that battle. As a result, unions as a whole, but public-sector ones in particular, have been targeted both politically and legally. And they just took a massive loss at the Court today.
Janus, of course, is not the end (although some unions may feel like it right now). Here are some questions I have after the decision—please add more (or responses) in the comments:
- Will courts try to apply Janus to the private sector? There has been some loose language by the Court in the past that raises the possibility that court enforcement of union fee agreements is enough for state action, particularly in more highly regulated areas. The Court since then has been moving towards a more narrow interpretation of state action, but as Janus shows, that doesn't mean they won't make an exception when unions are involved. Indeed, in Janus, the Court stated that the line between chargeable and uncharitable expenses is "unworkable" (it's certainly difficult at times, but this seems a stretch). On the other hand, in its defense of overruling Abood, the Court in Janus stressed the difference between public- and private-sector collective bargaining and footnote 24 the Court described this state action argument as "more questionable" now then when Abood was decided. This could be considered a minor win for unions. See Joe Slater’s helpful article on this topic in which he argues persuasively that this holding should not apply to the private sector.
- Is this the beginning of the end for exclusivity? Up to now, American labor law has been built on the notion that unions act as the exclusive representative of all employees in a unit. I predict (see warning above) that Janus will usher in more challenges to exclusivity. This may include unions being more willing to explore members-only representation, as well as the NLRB at some point addressing whether the NLRA requires employers to bargain with minority unions. For instance, a bill has already been introduced in NY that would allow unions to decline to represent non-member employees for grievances and other matters, while also allowing them to provide insurance and other benefits only to members; other states (California and NJ) have recently enacted and/or are working on other pro-union measures. One limit to this, however, is that in Janus, the Court seemed to double-down on the notion that unions and public-sector employers cannot agreed to contracts that treat nonmember employees worse. That doesn't preclude members-only unionism, but it does serve as a reminder that there would be limitations to such representation.
- Related to the exclusivity issue--is this also the end of fair representation? Even before the Janus decision was announced, unions filed suit in state courts challenging the idea that they have a duty to fairly represent all unit employees. Now that Court has held that the Constitution precludes dissenting employees from paying for union representation, unions will argue in turn that it is unconstitutional to force them to expend time and resources representing employees who pay nothing. Janus gives some mixed signals. In one direction, the Court stated that unions' "duty of fair representation is a necessary concomitant of the authority that a union seeks when it chooses to be the exclusive representative." Thus, unions may have to seek to be members-only to push this argument. In the other direction, the Court seems to approve of arrangements in which union charge nonmembers for using grievance or arbitration procedures.
- While exclusivity and fair representation are weakened, will Janus usher in a strengthening of public-sector employees’ 1st Amendment rights? The language in Janus suggests so, as it now states that public-sector working conditions are matters of public interest that warrant more 1st Amendment protections. Despite that, however, the answer I think is “no.” Although it’s not defensible, I believe the Court will limit its broad 1st Amendment interpretation to cases brought against unions. Individual employees, I predict, will continue to face steep challenges raises these claims. Indeed, in Janus, the Court made a point of stressing that union speech is a public concern and it distinguished Pickering by stressing the difference between a union pushing for a wage increase and an individual employee--all of which seems to be a to distinguish individual employees' free speech claims. In addition, I doubt the Court will be as concerned with the 1stAmendment when unions challenge Section 8(b) limitations on their right to protest, picket, and boycott. See Charlotte Garden’s article on this.
- How badly will this hurt unions? We saw fairly steep declines in union membership following major changes in states like Wisconsin. Will Janus and its new opt-in requirement extend that affect nationwide? I suspect that, on average, public-sector unions will see a big hit, but that the effect will not be consistent everywhere. This is especially true given that some states have already made moves to add protections for public-sector collective bargaining in anticipation of Janus.
- On a minor note, while discussing the difficulty in challenging what's chargeable and what's not under Abood, the Court in Janus stressed the "substantial" costs in bringing an arbitration case to make such a challenge. It wasn't central to either case, but that's one of the exact arguments in Epic Systems (and the earlier Italian Colors) that the Court didn't seem concerned about.
- On a non-labor related note, the number of precedents overruled by the Court in the last couple of weeks is remarkable--and that's just the ones overruled explicitly. For whatever reasons, the Court this term has seemed more willing to break from its past to achieve the result it wants, and it will be interesting to see if that trend continues next term.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Just a heads up: the Supreme Court just announced that tomorrow is the last day of the term. Which means that we'll have Janus. Not that the outcome is in doubt, but I'll have the decision posted, along with some thoughts ASAP. So stay tuned tomorrow morning, including following us on Twitter.
Monday, June 25, 2018
Monday, June 18, 2018
Yale Law Journal and Stanford Law Review have just published a companion symposium titled “#MeToo and the Future of Sexual Harassment Law.” The symposium addresses, among other things, how sexual harassment interacts with notions of gender policing, sex segregation, and arbitrary and unchecked power in the workplace; the kinds of reforms needed to more effectively discourage sexual harassment; and the need to extend protections to those who are accused of harassment. Here are the contributors; their abstracts are available on the other side of the page break.
- Vicki Schultz (Yale)
- Brian Soucek (U.C. Davis)
- Rachel Arnow-Richman (Denver)
- Angela Onwuachi-Willig (Berkeley en route to the deanship at Boston U.)
- Ramit Mizrahi (Mizrahi Law)
- Tristin K. Green (San Francisco)
- Ian Ayres (Yale)
- Nancy Gertner (Harvard)
- Susan Bisom-Rapp (Thomas Jefferson)
- Rebecca K. Lee (Thomas Jefferson)
- Nicole Buonocore Porter (Toledo)
- Ann C. McGinley (UNLV)
Friday, June 15, 2018
Some recent labor & employment stories in the news recently:
- The New York Times has a piece out today on the prevalence of pregnancy discrimination, which includes background on Peggy Young and her suit against UPS that went to the Supreme Court. It reminded of my time one summer as a law student working on a pregnancy discrimination trial at Vladeck Waldman in NY. I distinctly remember the attorneys being worried about our case--which should've been an easy one based on the facts--because of their past experience facing resistance to such claims in front of judges' and juries. Our client ultimately won this one, but looking back, it's crazy how much evidence of discrimination it took.
- The California Department of Industrial Relations found the Cheesecake Factory jointly liable for wage and overtime violations against janitors at its restaurants. The case involved new state laws imposing more legal liability on companies for their contractors's violations. In this case, a subcontractor was directly responsible for the violations, but both the Cheesecake Factory and the contractor it hired, which in turn hired the subcontractor, were held jointly liable.
- The NLRB has made explicit what has been clear for a while: it's going to engage in rulemaking on the joint employer test. Oh, and it will also conduct a comprehensive review of its ethical policies and standards for Board Member recusals.
- Thomas Edsall writes an op-ed in the NY Times about worker struggles in the current economy, particularly under the Trump administration. He quotes top economists, Sachin, and some other guy who blogs here.
Congratulations to Susan Bisom-Rapp (Thomas Jefferson) and Malcolm Sargeant (Middlesex Univ. London) on the paperback publication of their book Lifetime Disadvantage, Discrimination and the Gendered Workforce (Cambridge Univ. Press). The book has garnered favorable reviews since its publication in October 2016. Richard Poole (Newcastle University, UK) described the book as “a fine achievement…a thorough, compelling, and valuable book.” Erika Kispeter (University of Warwick, UK) called the book a “successful combination of the sociological and legal aspects of women’s lifetime disadvantage in work” and “an accessible often fascinating analysis of current laws and their implementation.”
Nicole Porter (University of Toledo, USA), in a forthcoming review notes, “To my knowledge, this is the only book that outlines, in a systematic way, how all of the disadvantages and discrimination women face over a lifetime accumulate to contribute to women’s economic insecurity in old age.” Praising its “ambitious” and “broad-minded approach,” and “voluminous body of research,” she added, “I thoroughly enjoyed this book.”
Cambridge University Press is presently offering the book at the discounted price of $27.99 (£18.39). The flyer for this pricing is available here.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Though a formal contract has not yet been signed, the ABA Labor & Employment Law Section Newsletter has announced that the ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law will be moving from University of Minnesota to St. Louis University. Miriam Cherry, Matt Bodie, and Marcia McCormick will be taking the reins from Laura Cooper and Steve Befort. Congrats to all!
COSELL XIII Registration Now Open: available here!!!
Registration is now open for The Thirteenth Annual Colloquium On Scholarship in Employment and Labor Law (COSELL), which will be held at the University of South Carolina School of Law in Columbia, South Carolina. We are celebrating our move into a completely new legal facility, and we look forward to you joining us for the conference from the evening of Thursday, September 27th through the afternoon of Saturday, September 29th, 2018. Information on registration, the conference hotel, and participating in the conference is now available here. Registration for the conference hotel is also now available online, and can be completed here.
We look forward to seeing everyone in South Carolina next fall, and please let me know if you have any questions about the registration process.
Monday, June 4, 2018
The Supreme Court just released its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, which dealt with a cake shop owner's claim that his religious freedom should allow him to refuse customers who wanted a cake for a same-sex wedding. The Supreme Court reversed a state commission's decision against the shop owner, holding that the decision violated his right to free expression. But the decision is narrower than it may first appear. In particular, the Court appeared to hinge the decision on the state commission's decision in the case, which it viewed as being impermissibly hostile to religion (this may have led to the 7-2 lineup at the Court).
This was not an employment case, but there are parallels. As a result, although the Court seemed to duck the underlying issue about free expression v. antidiscrimination laws, employers will no doubt try to use Masterpiece as a defense. But its value will depend on employers' ability to couch their employment discrimination as expression because one of the unique aspects of Masterpiece was that the shop owner claimed that making cakes was artistic--that is, constitutionally protected expression. Because of that, and the Court's criticism of the state commission, most employers will not be able to make an argument like Masterpiece. There will no doubt be exceptions--maybe a religious-themed artist that hires assistants--but there are not a lot of business that involve both the level of expression needed for such a claim, as well as the level of hostility that the Court perceived. But I'm sure many employers will make the argument nonetheless . . . .
Saturday, June 2, 2018
CHANGE OF DATE:
The Second Annual Equality Law Scholars’ Forum will be held at UC Davis Law School on Friday, November 16 – Saturday, November 17
Note: This is a change from the earlier announced November 9-10 date.
The date for submission of proposals (July 1) remains the same.
Corrected Call for Proposals:
Call for Proposals for the Second Annual Equality Law Scholars’ Forum
Building on the success of the Inaugural Equality Law Scholars’ Forum held at UC Berkeley Law last fall, and in the spirit of academic engagement and mentoring in the area of Equality Law, we (Tristin Green, University of San Francisco; Angela Onwuachi-Willig, UC Berkeley; and Leticia Saucedo, UC Davis) announce the Second Annual Equality Law Scholars’ Forum to be held this fall. This Scholars’ Forum seeks to provide junior scholars with commentary and critique and to provide scholars at all career stages the opportunity to engage with new scholarly currents and ideas. We hope to bring together scholars with varied perspectives (e.g., critical race theory, class critical theory, feminist legal theory, law and economics, law and society) across fields (e.g., criminal system, education, employment, family, health, immigration, property, tax) and with work relevant to many diverse identities (e.g., age, class, disability, national origin, race, sex, sexuality) to build bridges and to generate new ideas in the area of Equality Law.
We will select five relatively junior scholars (untenured, newly tenured, or prospective professors) to present papers from proposals submitted in response to this Call for Proposals. In so doing, we will select papers that cover a broad range of topics within the area of Equality Law. Leading senior scholars will provide commentary on each of the featured papers in an intimate and collegial setting. The Equality Law Scholars’ Forum will pay transportation and accommodation expenses for participants and will host a dinner on Friday evening.
This year’s Forum will be held on November 16-17, 2018 at UC Davis Law School.
Junior scholars are invited to submit abstracts of proposed papers, 3-5 pages in length, by July 1, 2018.
Full drafts must be available for circulation to participants by October 19, 2018.
Proposals should be submitted to:
Tristin Green, USF School of Law, email@example.com. Electronic submissions via email are preferred.
Friday, June 1, 2018
Some recent labor and employment law issues in the news:
- Well, it wasn't the big unit, but some employees at Boeing's South Carolina plant have voted to unionize. On Thursday, 178 technicians and inspectors voted (104-65) to be represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union.
- The largest federal employees union, American Federation of Government Employees, is suing to stop new rules put in place by recent executive orders. The central target of the dispute is a new 25% cap on "official time" that union officials can spend on union business; the other orders encourage more terminations of federal employees and restrict agencies' ability to negotiate collective-bargaining agreements. The official time challenge is based on the Civil Service Reform Act provision that permits official time and the First Amendment. This latter claim may be difficult given the Davenport decision, although the union is making more of a discrimination argument based on the executive orders application only to work done on other employees' behalf rather than work that a union official does on his or her won behalf.
- Casino strike averted? Just hours ago, the Culinary Workers union reached a deal with Caesar's to avoid what was looking to be a massive strike in Las Vegas. Caesar's only employs about a quarter of the 50,000 workers who could potential strike, so nothings certain yet. But it does look like the strike threat is paying off for the union.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
The NFL has just adopted a new policy on national anthem protests, which raises some potential labor law issues. As I understand the new policy, it implements three new features. First, it allows each team to establish its own policy on national anthem protests. The second feature, however, limits the first as it gives the NFL the power to fine any team if one of its players protests during the national anthem. The third feature also limits teams' ability to establish their own policy by eliminating the previous league-wide requirement that players must stay on the field during the anthem.
So what does this all mean? It appears that players who do not want to stand for the national anthem have at least two choices: stay in the locker room or take a knee during the anthem (or other types of protest). What happens to a player who takes the latter option depends on his team. At a minimum, the NFL will fine the team. But whether the individual player is disciplined depends on whether the team has established a policy barring such protests.
Labor law aficionados will see the potential NLRA issues here. The NFL owners established this new policy without discussing it with the NFLPA (players union). This raises some potential labor law problems. First, the new policy could violate the existing collective-bargaining agreement; indeed, the union said it was reviewing whether such a conflict exists. Second, by establishing a new policy without discussing it with the union, the NFL may have violated Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA, which prohibits an employer from unilaterally implementing changes in work conditions without first bargaining with the union. The NFL is likely to argue that this duty to bargain isn't implicated because players have the option to avoid any penalties (i.e., adverse work actions) by staying in the locker room. That's a plausible argument, but it's not obviously a winning one because the union could respond that there has been a change in the terms of work, namely that players were previously required to stand on the sidelines during the anthem and could take a knee without penalty, while under the new policy that's no longer an option.
Stay tuned . . . .
Peter Wiedenbeck (Wash. U.) writes to let us know about the annual Employee Benefits & Social Insurance Conferences, which have been running since 2012. The save-the-date announcement:
We are pleased to announce the dates and locations of the next two annual Employee Benefits & Social Insurance Conferences. The schedule is:
Academic Year 2018–2019
Friday, March 29, 2019
University of Illinois College of Law
Organized by Sean Anderson
[email: firstname.lastname@example.org; telephone: 217-244-8256]
Academic Year 2019–2020
Friday, October 18, 2019
Boston College Law School
Organized by Natalya Shnitser
[email: email@example.com; telephone: 617-552-2883]
If you are interested in participating in either conference, contact the organizer to receive additional information.
Monday, May 21, 2018
The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Epic Systems, ruling for employers who, as part of mandatory arbitration clauses, require their employees to waive their right to class actions. This should come as a surprise to no one, as the case pitted the Court's hatred of class actions against the NLRA.
The 5-member majority decision followed a typical pattern in many respects, including a continuation of its ever-broadening reading of the Federal Arbitration Act's protection of arbitration agreements and a rejection of an argument to grant the NLRB Chevron deference. What's more surprising though was the majority's reading of the NLRA's Section 7. Although it was not required to do so, the Court essentially overruled long-standing NLRB precedent holding that Section 7 protected employees who join together in collective legal actions to advance their workplace conditions. The Court defended this conclusion by, among other things, saying that "Section 7 focuses on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively" and holding that Section 7's protection for "other concerted activities," "like the terms that precede it, serve to protect things employees 'just do' for themselves in the course of exercising their right to free association in the workplace, rather than 'the highly regulated, courtroom-bound ‘activities’ of class and joint litigation.'” I've taught labor law for many years and have never seen Section 7 described in this narrow of a fashion. Indeed, the Court oddly cites the famous Washington Aluminum case for the proposition that "§7 cases have generally involved efforts related to organizing and collective bargaining in the workplace, not the treatment of class or collective action procedures in court or arbitration." One may debate whether Section 7 was originally thought to encompass class actions, but describing Washington Aluminum as an "organizing and collective bargaining" case is nuts--that's the classic decision involving non-union collective action. It involved a walkout by non-union workers who were sick of severely cold conditions in their plant; there was no union on the scene, no attempt to organize a union, and no collective bargaining.
Justice Ginsburg's dissent does a thorough job of showing why Section 7 is much broader than the majority makes it out to be. Using history, the NLRA's text, and NLRB precedent she also emphasized that access to the legal enforcement was a key aspect of the new rights embodied in the NLRA. She finishes with this:
If these untoward consequences stemmed from legislative choices, I would be obliged to accede to them. But the edict that employees with wage and hours claims may seek relief only one-by-one does not come from Congress. It is the result of take-it-or-leave-it labor contracts harking back to the type called “yellow dog,” and of the readiness of this Court to enforce those unbargained-for agreements. The FAA demands no such suppression of the right of workers to take concerted action for their “mutual aid or protection.”
Given that this case will likely be followed shortly by a loss for public-sector unions in the Janus case, this term looks to go down as one that brought a major constriction of labor rights.
Congratulations to David Yamada (Suffolk) on a couple of fronts. First, check out his new book, Workplace Bullying and Mobbing in the United States (Maureen Duffy & David C. Yamada eds., Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2018), a two-volume, multidisciplinary book set for scholars and practitioners, featuring 25 chapters and 27 contributors. Here's a brief description:
With over two dozen contributors (including a Foreword by Dr. Gary Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute) and some 600 pages packed into two volumes, we believe this will be an important, comprehensive contribution to the growing literature on workplace bullying and mobbing, useful for scholars and practitioners alike. The project deliberately takes a U.S. focus in order to take into account the unique aspects of American employment relations.May 9 issue of
Second, David was quoted in Bloomberg Business Week in the article Companies Have an Aha! Moment: Bullies Don’t Make the Best Managers. Here's an excerpt:
The surprise announcement in March that 55-year-old Nike brand president Trevor Edwards—who had a reputation for humiliating subordinates in meetings—would leave following an internal investigation about workplace behavior issues suggests the coddling of tough guys may have come to an end. “Some companies are realizing that a bullying boss isn’t the best way to manage a company,” says David Yamada, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston who’s authored antibullying legislation. “Maybe we’re starting to see a tipping point.”