Saturday, October 30, 2004

Report on Federal Employment Discrimination Law

Federal Judicial Center Report: Major issues in the federal law of employment discrimination--4th edition

"An examination of the substantive and procedural provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This fourth edition discusses developments in the law through June 2004, including changes resulting from the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It covers such issues as claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact, affirmative action, and discrimination on the basis of sex, national origin, and religion. Other federal remedies for employment discrimination are also discussed. A bibliography of works the author considers most useful to judges and lawyers in the field is included."

October 30, 2004 in Government Reports | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Michael Selmi visiting at Suffolk

Michael Selmi, member of the George Washington University Law School faculty, is spending the Fall 2004 Semester as a Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School.


October 30, 2004 in Faculty Moves | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, October 29, 2004

Cooper, Nolan & Bales on ADR

Professor Laura Cooper (Minnesota), Dennis Nolan (South Carolina) and Richard Bales (Northern Kentucky) announce the second edition of ADR in the Workplace (West). The second edition, due early next year, features updated material on labor arbitration, signifcantly increased coverage of employment arbitration, and major revisions in the sections on mediation and other forms of ADR.

The authors notify us that although the book will not be available until mid-January, West has agreed to print advance copies in temporary form for those beginning courses this Spring. Here is the publication information for that version: If you would like to order the 2d edition of ADR in the Workplace in its page-proof form to be available for classes starting in January, the ISBN is 0-314-15945-2 from West and the identification is “ADR Cooper Custom Pub.” You might put on your book orders that anyone with questions should contact Alice Mitchell at 651-848- 5893.

October 29, 2004 in Teaching | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Beane on Diversity

Billy Beane (general manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team) tells HR professionals that: "The right metrics and an open mind can help businesses hire star performers at bargain prices." Beane ball: Win with metrics and an open mind

Regarding diversity, the article notes:

Beane delivered a perhaps unexpected message on diversity. His insistence on evaluating players on objective performance data, rather than subjective appearances or preconceived notions of what a baseball player should look like, has given many talented performers a chance to shine on a national stage—a chance they might never have otherwise had.

Billy Beane is the object of Michael Lewis' bestseller Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game.

For an application of Beane's principles to law schools see: What Law Schools Can Learn from Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics, 82 Texas L. Rev. 1483 (2004), Paul Caron & Rafael Gely.

October 29, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Panel on Labor Issues in Professional Sports

Duke Law School will host a panel discussion focused on the labor issues impacting professional sports leagues today Friday, Oct. 29, 2004 . The dialogue, entitled "Labor Strife & Economics: The Present & Future of the National Hockey League," will be held in Room 3043 from 4-6 p.m. , and a brief reception will follow. Sponsored by the Duke Sports and Entertainment Law Society, in conjunction with the Law School ’s Business Law Society and Fuqua's Sports & Entertainment Business Association , the event is free and open to the public. For more information click here.

October 29, 2004 in Conferences & Colloquia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Employees' Election Rights

As I blogged last Monday (here), the majority of states have laws requiring companies to give employees time off to exercise their right to vote. What follows is a list of links to state laws requiring companies to provide time off to employees to vote, or which provide for other type of protections for employees participating in elections.

Alaska, Title 15, Chapter 15, Section 100
Arizona, Title 16, Chapter 4, Article 1
Arkansas, Title 7, Chapter 1, Section 7-1-102
California, Cal. Elections Code, Div. 14-Ch.1
Colorado, Title 1, Article 7, Part 1, Sec 1-7-102
Delaware, Title 15, Ch.47, Sec. 4709
Florida, Title IX, Ch. 104, Sec. 104.081
Georgia, Title21, Ch.2, Art.11, Part 1, Sec. 21-2-404
Hawaii, Division 1, Title 2, Chapter 11, Part VII, Sec. 11-95
Illinois, 10 ILCS 5/17-15
Iowa, Title II-Subtitle 1-Ch. 49- Sec. 49.109
Kansas, Ch. 25, Article 4, Sec. 25- 418
Kentucky, Title X, Ch. 118, Sec. 118.035
Louisiana, Title 23, Ch. 9, Part III, Sec. 23:961
Maryland, Election Law, Title 10, Subtitle 3-Sec. 10-315
Massachusetts, Part I, Title XXI, Ch. 149, Sec. 178
Minnesota, Elections, Ch. 204C, Sec. 204C.04
Mississippi, Title 23, Art. 27, Sec. 23-15-871
Missouri, Title IX, Ch. 115, Sec. 115.639
Nebraska, Ch. 32, Sec. 32-922
Nevada, Title 24, Ch. 293, Sec. 293.463
New Jersey, Title 19, Subtitle 7, Ch. 34, Sec. 19:34-27 to 19:34-31
New Mexico, Ch. 1, Art. 12, Sec. 1-12-42
New York, NY Election Law, Article 3, Title 1, Sec. 3-110
North Carolina, Ch. 163, SubchapterVIII, Art. 22, Sec. 163-274
North Dakota, Title 16.1, Chapter 16.1-01, Sec. 16.1-01-02.1
Ohio, Title XXXV, Ch. 3599, Sec. 3599.06
Oklahoma, Title 26, Ch. A1, Art. VII, Sec. 7-101
Pennsylvania, Title 25, Ch. 14, Art. XVIII, Sec. 3547
Rhode Island, Title 17, Ch. 23, Sec. 17-23-6
South Carolina, Title 16, Ch. 17, Art. 7, Sec. 16-17-560
South Dakota, Title 12, Ch. 12-3, Sec. 12-3-5
Tennessee, Title 2, Ch. 1, Sec. 2-1-106
Texas, Texas Election Code, Title 16, Ch. 276, Sec. 276.004
Utah, Title 20A, Ch. 3, Part I, Sec. 20A-3-103
Virginia, Title 24.2, Ch.7, Sec. 24.2-700
Washington, Title 49, Ch. 49.28, Sec. 49.28.120
West Virginia, Ch. 3, Art. 1, Sec. 3-1-42
Wisconsin, Ch. 6, Subch. III, Sec. 6.76
Wyoming, Title 22, Ch. 2, Sec. 22-2-111

October 28, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

Estlund presents at Northwestern

Cynthia Estlund (Columbia) presents, Working Together Under Antidiscrimination Law: Possibilities and Paradoxes, as part of Northwestern's Employment Law Colloquim today October 28, 2004.

October 28, 2004 in Conferences & Colloquia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Symposium - Workers' Rights After 9/11

Professor Charles J. Morris (Professor Emeritus, Southern Methodist University) and Professor Ruben Garcia (California Western School of Law) are the speakers at the symposium - Voice at Work: New Visions of Workers' Associational Rights Post-9/11. The symposium is organized by Susan Bison-Rapp at Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
Date: October 28, 2004
Time: 11:45 a.m. - 12:45 p.m

October 27, 2004 in Conferences & Colloquia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Working Paper on Networks and Wages

A fascinating paper by Kenneth J. Arrow (Stanford) and Ron Borzekowski (Federal Reserve Board ) on Limited Network Connections and the Distribution of Wages. Here is the abstract:

It is well-known that 50% or more of all jobs are obtained through informal channels i.e. connections to family or friends. As well, statistical studies show that observable individual factors account for only about 50% of the very wide variation in earnings. We seek to explain these two facts by assuming that the linking of workers and firms is mediated by limited network connections. The model implies that essentially similar workers can have markedly different wages and further that the inequality of wages is partly explained by variations in the sizes of workers' networks. Our results indicate that differences in the number of ties can induce substantial inequality and can explain roughly 15% of the unexplained variation in wages. We also show that reasonable differences in the average number of links between blacks and whites can explain the disparity in black and white income distributions.

(Thanks to Alan Hyde (Rutgers) for the tip)

October 27, 2004 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Whistle-blower Bill

Stephen Barr (Washington Post) reports on a pending bill on whistle-blowing protections for federal employees. According to Barr, the

"bipartisan efforts in Congress to help protect federal employees who become whistle-blowers appear to be stalled because of opposition from the Justice Department."
(Justice Department Opposition Holds Up Whistle-Blower Measures)

Barr reports that:

In a letter to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, William E. Moschella, assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, called the Senate bill "burdensome, unnecessary and unconstitutional." "Rather than promote and protect genuine disclosures of matters of real public concern, it would provide a legal shield for unsatisfactory employees," Moschella wrote.


October 26, 2004 in Beltway Developments | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

NYLS's First Annual Tony Coelho Lecture

Last week I blogged about the New York Law School's First Annual Tony Coelho Lecture in Disability Employment Law & Policy, which featured Congressman Steny Hoyer as a speaker. Professor Seth Harris (Director, Labor and Employment Law Program) informs us that transcripts and video of the lecture are available here.

October 26, 2004 in Conferences & Colloquia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Challenging Neo-classical labor market economics

J7522 In
Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets, Alan Manning (London School of Economics):

mounts a systematic challenge to the standard model of perfect competition. Monopsony in Motion stands apart by analyzing labor markets from the real-world perspective that employers have significant market (or monopsony) power over their workers. Arguing that this power derives from frictions in the labor market that make it time-consuming and costly for workers to change jobs, Manning re-examines much of labor economics based on this alternative and equally plausible assumption. The book addresses the theoretical implications of monopsony and presents a wealth of empirical evidence. Our understanding of the distribution of wages, unemployment, and human capital can all be improved by recognizing that employers have some monopsony power over their workers. Also considered are policy issues including the minimum wage, equal pay legislation, and caps on working hours. In a monopsonistic labor market, concludes Manning, the "free" market can no longer be sustained as an ideal and labor economists need to be more open-minded in their evaluation of labor market policies. Monopsony in Motion will represent for some a new fundamental text in the advanced study of labor economics, and for others, an invaluable alternative perspective that henceforth must be taken into account in any serious consideration of the subject.

(Thanks to Alan Hyde (Rutgers) for the tip)

October 26, 2004 in Book Club | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 25, 2004

Workplace Voting Rights

A reminder from the Atlanta Journal Constitution about state laws regarding workers' right to vote. In Election Day, the workplace and the law, the Journal notes that:

"Thirty states have laws requiring companies to give workers time off to vote. There's no law that employers must post information about time-off-to-vote laws."
Among the most restrictive laws are New York and Colorado, where "companies essentially face a corporate death sentence if they violate the time-off-to-vote law. They could lose their corporate charter if they bar a worker from voting." Among the most permissive: "Florida — site of infamous voter irregularities in the 2000 presidential election — has no laws requiring companies to give workers time off to vote. But workers can't be disciplined or fired based on how they vote."

October 25, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Why do Americans work so much?

A couple of different perspectives on the work/leisure tradeoff. Edward C. Prescott (2004 Nobel in Economics, Arizona State) argues in the Wall Street Journal that the answer to why americans work so much more than europeans, "is not related to cultural differences or institutional factors like unemployment benefits, but that marginal tax rates explain virtually all of [the] difference." (Why do Americans work more than Europeans?)

Alain de Botton (author of Status Anxiety) suggested a different answer in the New York Times (Workers of the World, Relax). According to De Botton: "All societies throughout history have had work right at their center; but ours - particularly America's - is the first to suggest that it could be something other than a punishment or penance. Ours is the first to imply that a sane human being would want to work even if he wasn't under financial pressure to do so. We are unique, too, in allowing our choice of work to define who we are, so that the central question we ask of new acquaintances is not where they come from or who their parents are but, rather, what it is they do - as though only this could effectively reveal what gives a human life its distinctive timbre."

(Thanks to my fellow blogger, Paul Caron, for the tip)

October 25, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Best Labor Law in America

Jennifer Gordon (Fordham Law School) presents, "The Best Labor Law in America: The United Farm Workers, the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, and Reflections on the Reform of the NLRA” as part of the Hofstra University Law School's Faculty Workshops 2004 Series.

October 25, 2004 in Conferences & Colloquia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Cardozo Journal on Conflict Resolution

The Cardozo Journal on Conflict Resolution (CJCR) is inviting submissions for the 2004 and 2005 volumes.

Established in 1998, the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution ("CJCR"), formerly known as the Cardozo Online Journal of Conflict Resolution, has become a key component of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law's commitment to the area of alternative dispute resolution ("ADR"). As a burgeoning field of law, ADR plays a crucial role in nearly all legal practices. CJCR aims to contribute positively to the academic discourse in this field. As such, CJCR's biannual publication includes a broad range of notes, articles and commentaries from students, professors and attorneys, embracing provocative concepts within the field. In addition, CJCR hosts symposia highlighting some of the most current and provocative issues.

If you are interested in submitting your work to the Journal, please send a copy of your article, in microsoft format, either by email or regular mail to:
Editor-in-Chief
Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution
55 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003

October 24, 2004 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)