Sunday, March 1, 2015

Herbert & McNally on Just Cause and Social Networking

HerbertBill Herbert (Hunter College) and Alicia McNally (New York State PERB) have just posted on SSRN their article, Just Cause Discipline for Social Networking in the New Gilded Age: Will the Law Look the Other Way?.  The abstract:

We live and work in an era with the moniker of the New Gilded Age to describe the growth in societal income inequality. The designation is not limited to evidence of the growing gap in wealth distribution, but also the sharp rise in employment without security, including contingent and part-time work. This article examines the state of workplace procedural protections against discipline as they relate to employee use of social media in the New Gilded Age. In our times, reactions to the rapid distribution of troublesome electronic communications through social networking tend to eclipse patience for enforceable workplace procedures. The advent of social media and the decline of job security have created a perfect storm that raises the question of whether labor law will look the other way when it comes to the principles of workplace fairness and justice.

The article begins with President William McKinley’s introduction of the doctrine of just cause discipline into American labor law in 1897, during the Gilded Age, at the same time that the common law at-will doctrine was continuing to gestate. McKinley’s unilateral executive action established principles that remain the cornerstone of just cause discipline: proper notice, a fair evidentiary investigation, an opportunity to be heard, and nondiscriminatory treatment. The article then turns to the development of just cause standards in the 20th Century, which added other elements such as notice of workplace policies and the use of progressive discipline. Lastly, the article examines how just cause principles should be applied to allegations of electronic misconduct in the New Gilded Age to ensure reasonable and prudent disciplinary results, employee acceptance of adverse employment decisions, and a decreased likelihood of litigated claims of unlawful discrimination.

I'll confess that I was totally unaware of McKinley's action.  Learn about that move and the intersection of just cause and technology in this interesting article.


March 1, 2015 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy

HunterThe National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education's newest edition of the   Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy is out.  The peer-reviewed journal's latest includes the following articles:

  • The Impact of Unionization on University Performance by Mark Cassell and Odeh Halaseh;
  • Post-Recession CBAs: A Study of Wage Increases in the Agreements of Four State-wide Faculty Unions by Steve Hicks; and
  • Academic Collective Bargaining: Patterns and Trends by Curtis R. Sproul, Neil Bucklew, and Jeffery D. Houghton.

Check it out!


March 1, 2015 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Senate Hearing on NLRB Joint Employer Rule

NLRBAs readers know, the NLRB's General Counsel is pursuing an action against McDonald's that, along with its opinion in the Roundy's case, would somewhat expand the concept of joint employment under the NLRA.  (Note that this article, which is otherwise good, mistakenly states that the NLRB has decided the issue.)  It's actually unclear to me how significant the GC's analysis would be in practice, but it's clearly a change in a direction that employers don't like.  As a result, the Senate recently held a hearing on the issue (there's a similar on the new representation rules that I'll post on once they happen later in the month).

Our emeritus blogger, Paul Secunda was one of the witnesses and seemed to do quite well).  There are obviously arguments about where the line between single and joint employment should be, but I think the GC is reasonably concerned about having their cake and eating it too (or Big Macs).  In other words, if corporations want more control over the employment practices of its franchises, it needs to take responsibility as well.  


February 7, 2015 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, January 9, 2015

Michigan: Public University Student-Athletes are Not Public Employees

    As student football players at Northwestern University press forward with their case at the National Labor Relations Board, the Michigan legislature has amended its statute governing public-employee collective bargaining to exclude student athletes at Michigan’s public universities.  The amendment, now in effect, added the underlined text:

An individual serving as a graduate student research assistant or in an equivalent position, and a student participating in intercollegiate athletics on behalf of a public university in this state, or any individual whose position does not have sufficient indicia of an employer-employee relationship using the 20-factor test announced by the internal revenue service of the United States department of treasury in revenue ruling 87-41, 1987-1 C.B. 296 is not a public employee entitled to representation or collective bargaining rights under this act.

Michigan Complied Laws 423.201(1)(e)(iii).  (Although the text of this provision also excludes graduate student research assistants, a federal district court declared that exclusion to violate article IV, section 24, of the Michigan Constitution.  Toth v. Callaghan, 995 F. Supp. 2d 774 (E.D. Mich. 2014).)


--Sachin Pandya

January 9, 2015 in Labor Law, Public Employment Law, Union News | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 19, 2014

Big Day at NLRB: General Counsel Issues Joint-Employer Complaint Against McDonald's and NLRB Issues Decision Changing Religious and Faculty Exemption Doctrines

NLRBA couple of big NLRB actions today.  In the first, and as expected,  the General Counsel issued  consolidated complaints against McDonald's, alleging that the company is a joint employer along with its franchisees and therefore liable for numerous unfair labor practices (some of which have already been found to be meritorious).  This is likely part of the GC's push in Browning-Ferris to revise the joint-employer doctrine, as well as a more aggressive argument that corporate control over franchises warrants joint-employer status.  As far as the practical effect for the Board's recent moves, this case and Browning-Ferris is unparalleled.  As much as the religious and faculty issues today are interesting and email captures the public's attention (and mine), far more companies and employees could be impacted by changes to the joint-employer doctrine.  So this is one well worth watching.

In the second issue today, the Pacific Lutheran decision, the NLRB is getting a lot of bang for its buck, as it is changing two doctrines.  The first is a new Catholic Bishop analysis for determining when religious schools and faculty should be exempt from NLRB jurisdiction. Under the new Pacific Lutheran standard, the NLRB will only decline jurisdiction when a university or college shows that it "holds itself out as providing a religious educational environment" (a requirement adopted from the D.C. Circuit's Great Falls decision) and shows that "it holds out the petitioned-for faculty members as performing a religious function."  This latter requirement means that faculty must perform a "specific role" in the creation or maintenance of the school's religious education, as shown by evidence that might include job descriptions, employment agreements, faculty handbooks, and statements by the university.  This new standard is likely to decrease the number of schools that can enjoy the religion exemption, although it's not clear to me at this point how big that effect will be.

The second is a revision of the Yeshiva University standard for determining when university faculty are managerial employees exempt from NLRA coverage.  The NLRB describes this revision as an attempt to provide more guidance and predictability for parties concerned about the application of Yeshiva.  The analysis is focused on Yeshiva's requirement that managerial faculty have broad and substantial decision-making authority, which the Board attempts to capture with five categories of university decision-making.  Three of the categories are deemed more important to the university as a whole ("primary"): academic programs, finances, and enrollment management.  The other two categories are less important to the university as a whole ("secondary"): academic policy and personnel policy and decisions.  When determining whether faculty have control over these decisions, the Board will look to the actual exercise of control or ability to effectively recommend decisions.  The result seems like to expand the number of faculty who will be covered by the NLRA, but the extent to which that's true will have to wait for its application in more cases.

A busy and important day for the NLRB.  But, I don't expect it to be the last such day this year.

Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh


December 19, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

NLRB Modifies Arbitration Deferral Standard

Yesterday, the NLRB issued a decision in Babcock & Wilcox, which changed its approach to arbitration deferral. Under the Board's previous "Olin" standard, it would defer to an arbitration decision if the contractual issue decided by the arbitrator is factuall parellel to the unfair labor proactice before the Board, the arbitrator was generally presented with the facts relevant to the ULP, and the award was not clearly repugnant to the NLRA. In reversing this standard, the Board argued that it did not adequately protect employees' NLRA rights because it allowed deferral when it was not clear that an arbitrator decided the statutory issue.

Under the new Babcock & Wilcox standard, the NLRB will defer to an arbitration award when the party arguing for deferral shows that the statutory issues were presented to the arbitrator, the arbitrator addressed the statutory issue or was prevented from doing so by the party opposing deferral, and NLRB law reasoanbly permits the award. Like the D.R. Horton case, this is another recent example where the Board has stressed the importance of NLRA rights in the face of pressure to favor arbitration.

Conflicts with arbitration usually fall arbitration's way before the Supreme Court, so expect a significant challenge to this new standard. That said, adjusting when to defer to arbitration is less of a direct challenge and more withing the Board's discretion, so this decision could well survive. Stay tuned.

Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh -JH

December 16, 2014 in Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 12, 2014

New NLRB Representation Rules

NLRBDoesn't the NLRB know this is a busy week for me?  First was yesterday's e-mail decision in Purple Communications.  Today, the NLRB released new final rules to reform the representation process.  As readers are well aware, this is Version 2.0 for the representation rulemaking process, which was initially caught up in challenges over NLRB member appointments.  The NLRB decided to drop the rules rather than fight the challenge.  Some commentators (ahem) thought that the critics should beware of what they ask for because the NLRB could come back with stronger rules. The Board proposed just such a set of rules in February. The Board has now adopted them in a final rule.  I haven't had time to compare the proposed and final rules side-by-side, but they look substantially the same at first glance.

Although these rules are somewhat broader than the ones in 2011, I should note that they aren't a surprise, as they track the NLRB initial proposed rules in 2011, which the Board eased back on a bit in their final rules.  The Board's information site on this year's rules has a very helpful chart comparing the old and new rules that you should definitely check out (but doesn't copy well on the blog).  Instead, I am copying the Board's summaries of the changes below; the full set of final rules is here.

One final note.  In spite of what critics will argue, these rules do not set up "ambush elections."  Instead, the NLRB is proposing modest reforms to eliminate unwarranted delay in the election process, both before an election is run and appeals to a completed election.  They are also doing basic modernization reforms, such as allowing electronic filing and including e-mail addresses in the Exclesior list, among other things.  There will still be plenty of time for unions and employers to express their views on unionization and for employees to make an informed decision.  There will just be somewhat less time for employers fight the union with captive-audience meetings and other aggressive tactics, some of which are illegal but difficult to remedy.  Employers will still have time for those strategies, just not as much.  The rules will also lessen the amount of time that employers can stall after a union wins an election--time that is often vital to a union trying to maintain support.  Finally, many critics will be people who argued against card-check elections by waving the banner of fair secret-ballot elections.  This is exactly what the Board is doing here by making the secret-ballot process fairer and lessening unnecessary delay.

Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh


Here's the summary:

Modernizing Board Procedures

Electronic Filing/Communications – Parties may file documents, such as petitions, electronically, rather than by fax or mail.  Parties and the NLRB’s regional offices can transmit documents electronically, rather than using slower or more expensive forms of communications, such as mail or express delivery services.    

Election Voter List – The employer must include available personal email addresses and phone numbers of voters on the voter list in order to permit non-employer parties to communicate with prospective voters about the upcoming election using modern forms of communication.

Streamlining Board Procedure and Reducing Unnecessary Litigation

Identifying Disputed Issues – The non-petitioning parties will be required to respond to the petition and state their positions generally the day before the pre-election  hearing opens.  The petitioner will be required to respond to the issues raised by the non-petitioning parties at the opening of the hearing.  Litigation inconsistent with the positions taken by the parties will generally not be allowed.   

Litigation of Eligibility and Inclusion Issues – Generally, only issues necessary to determine whether an election should be conducted will be litigated in a pre-election hearing.  A regional director may defer litigation of eligibility and inclusion issues affecting a small percentage of the appropriate voting unit to the post-election stage if those issues do not have to be resolved in order to determine if an election should be held.  In many cases, those issues will not need to be litigated because they have no impact on the results of the election.

Post Hearing Oral Argument and Briefs – All parties will be provided with an opportunity for oral argument before the close of the hearing.  Written briefs will be allowed only if the regional director determines they are necessary.      

Review of Regional Director Rulings – The parties may seek review of all regional representation-case rulings through a single post-election request, if the election results have not made those rulings moot.  The election will no longer be stayed after the regional director issues a decision and direction of election, in the absence of an order from the Board.

Review Standard for Post-election Issues – The Board will have the discretion to deny review of regional director post-election rulings, under the same standard that has governed Board review of regional director pre-election rulings for many years. 

Increasing Transparency and Standardizing Board Process 

Earlier and more complete information to the parties – When the petitioner files its petition, it will be required to simultaneously serve a copy of the petition, along with a more detailed Agency description of representation case procedures and an Agency Statement of Position form, on all parties identified in its petition in order to provide them with the earliest possible notice of the filing of the petition and Board procedures for processing those petitions.  NLRB regional offices will serve a Notice of Hearing and a Notice of Petition for Election (along with a copy of the petition, description of representation case procedures and the Statement of Position form) on all parties.   The non-petitioning parties will be required to respond to the petition (generally the day before the hearing opens) by filing with the regional director and serving on the other parties a Statement of Position identifying the issues they have with the petition.  As part of its Statement of Position, the employer will be required to provide all other parties with a list of prospective voters, their job classifications, shifts and work locations.        

Earlier and more complete information to employees - The employer is required to post a Notice of Petition for Election containing more detailed information on the filing of the petition and employee rights within two business days of the region’s service of the petition.  The Notice of Election will provide prospective voters with more detailed information about the election and the voting process.

Scheduling of Hearings – Except in cases presenting unusually complex issues, pre-election hearings will generally be set to open 8 days after a hearing notice is served on the parties.  Post-election hearings will generally open 14 days after objections are filed.        


December 12, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Secunda on Right to Work laws

SecundaWith right to work on the agenda and in the public eye in Wisconsin, it only makes sense that Milwaukee's NPR affiliate WUWM would turn to Paul Secunda, our friend and blogger emeritus. Paul was a guest on "Lake Effect," with this introduction:  "As a potential debate over right-to-work laws looms in Wisconsin, we get some historical perspective on such legislation, and more insight into the impact it could have on labor and politics in the Badger State." Follow the link to listen to the whole thing, or find just Paul's segment on this page. Nice work, Paul!


December 11, 2014 in Commentary, Faculty News, Faculty Presentations, Labor and Employment News, Labor Law, Labor/Employment History | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

NLRB Reverses E-Mail Rule in Purple Communications

NLRBToday, the NLRB issued its 3-2 decision in Purple Communications, reversing Register-Guard.  In Register-Guard, the Board concluded that employees had no right to e-mail communications that used employers' equipment or networks (including employer email addresses).  This gave employers f almost total autonomy to ban workplace e-mails that involved NLRA-protected communications.

In Purple, the NLRB concludes that employees do have a Section 7 right to engage in e-mail communications at work, just like they have for written or oral communications at work under the Supreme Court's Republic Aviation case.  As the Board noted, this result logically flows from Republic Aviation's holding that employer's real property interests cannot trump employees' NLRA right to engage in protected communications in the workplace--instead those interests must be balanced.  The NLRB in Register-Guard distinguished Republic Aviation by relying on the fact that e-mail uses employers' personal, rather than real, property.  However, as the Board acknowledged in Purple, that's backwards because personal property is entitled to less protection than real property.  The Board also downplayed early cases making similar points for bulletin boards, telephones, and other personal property--none of which provided any substantive analysis of the issues involved.

The main rule in Purple is a Republic Aviation-based analysis, in which:

 we will presume that employees who have rightful access to their employer’s email system in the course of their work have a right to use the email system to engage in Section 7-protected communications on nonworking time. An employer may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that special circumstances necessary to maintain production or discipline justify restricting its employees’ rights.

Some important points for this analysis.  First, the Board did away with some aspects of Republic Aviation that doesn't fit e-mail well.  In particular, the right to use e-mail is not based on whether it was made in a non-work area or whether it is a solicitation or distribution.  This makes perfect sense, as neither distinction applies to electronic communications.  In contrast, the rule is limited to non-work time.  As the Board noted, this is going to require case-specific analyses.  That shouldn't be too hard in most cases (e.g., if employees don't have work and non-work time delineated, the employer shouldn't be allowed to limit e-mail based on that distinction), but there will be some gray areas.  Second, the presumption is limited to instances where employees already have access to employer e-mail.  Third, the decision is limited to e-mail, but not other electronic communications.  I find this odd, as the rationale of the decision should apply to texts and other similar electronic communications.  But the Board was probably just trying to limit the holding's reach.  Finally, the Board shed some light on how it will treat surveillance issues.  This was a potentially big issue, but the Board took a fairly employer-friendly view by stating that as long as the employer monitors e-mail as it ordinarily would (e.g, it doesn't increase monitoring when a union is on the scene), it will be OK.  

As many readers are aware, I've written a lot on this issue (including an amicus brief in Purple) and am quite pleased with the decision (if readers want more detail on these issues, you can see some of my earlier work here, here, and here).   It could've gone further, but I think the Board issued a very sound decision that wisely tried not to go broader than it needed to.  Although critics will say otherwise, the bottom line is that Purple is not a radical decision.  Register-Guard was the aberration by flauting both Supreme Court and basic common law. In Purple, the Board merely reversed an error and extended well-established precedent to a mode of communication that isn't even that new anymore.


December 11, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

McFerran Confirmed for NLRB Appointment

NLRBIt's official.  On Monday, the Senate voted to confirm Lauren McFerran to the NLRB by a 54-40 vote.  It's great to have the NLRB remaining at full strength and, while I'm disappointed not to see Sharon Block back, McFerran looks like she'll be really good.

Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh


December 9, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Higher Education Conference and Archives

HunterBill Herbert writes to inform us about a couple of announcements from the The National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions.  The first is the Center's 42nd Annual Conference, at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, from April 19-21, 2015.  The topic is "Thinking about Tomorrow: Collective bargaining and Labor Relations in Higher Education.  As you can see from the conference website, there is an impressive list of panels and speakers.

Also, the Center has made available online all of its bimonthly newsletters from 1973-2000.  The website containing the archive notes:

Between 1973 and 2000, the National Center published a bimonthly newsletter with contributions from directors and newsletter editors Maurice Benewitz, Thomas Mannix, Theodore H. Lang, Aaron Levenstein, Joel M. Douglas, Frank R. Annunziato and Beth H. Johnson. In addition, issues of the newsletter included contributions by other scholars including Clark Kerr, Fred Lane, Clara Lovett, Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, Myron Lieberman, Irwin Polishook, Matthew Finkin, Richard W. Hurd and Richard Chait.

Over its 27 year publication history, the newsletter contained articles, analysis and data on subjects that continue to be topical in higher education and the professions including: the impact of the Supreme Court’s Yeshiva University decision, the organizing and representation of adjunct faculty and graduate students, academic freedom and tenure, shared governance, discrimination and faculty strikes. The final issue of the newsletter appeared in 2000 with excerpts of a speech given by then AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney at the National Center’s 28th annual conference as the first annual Albert Shanker Lecture.


December 4, 2014 in Conferences & Colloquia, Labor and Employment News, Labor Law, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

McFerran Approved by HELP Committee

NLRBThe Senate's HELP committee has approved Lauren McFerran's nomination to the NLRB by a party-line vote (12-10).  The early timing of the committe's action is probably the most important fact, as it seems to indicate an intent to have a full Senate vote before the end of the year--and the changing of the Senate majority to Republicans.  It's looking, therefore, that the Board will have it's full five members until at least August 2015, when Harry Johnson's term expires (there could be a minor delay between Nancy Shiefer's term, which ends on Dec. 16 and McFerran's confirmation).  Given that Johnson is Republican, we could see his seat filled in a timely fashion, although I wouldn't bet either way on that one.

Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh


December 4, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, December 1, 2014

AALS workplace sections joint newsletter

Aals Thanks to Monique Lillard (Idaho), chair of the AALS Labor Relations and Employment section and Natasha Martin (Seattle), chair of the AALS Employment Discrimination section for sending along the joint newsletter of the two sections for posting. Download it while it's hot:  Download Joint Newsletter for AALS Sections


December 1, 2014 in Disability, Employment Common Law, Employment Discrimination, Faculty News, International & Comparative L.E.L., Labor and Employment News, Labor Law, Public Employment Law, Scholarship, Teaching, Wage & Hour | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Members-Only Unions at VW

VW VW has announced that it will recognize members-only unions at its Chattanooga plant.  Following the UAW's inability to get the necessary 50%+ votes to become the exclusive reprentative for all unit employees, this represents a second-best solution.  According to reports, the plan will be to create a three-tiered classification for unions that show support from at least 15%, 30%, and 45% of employees.  All of these groups will be able to meet with HR officials at least once a month as representatives for their members.  Those with 30% or 45% will be entitled to some unspecified additional rights.

This is all very interesting and I'm curious to see how it works.  What is less clear is whether this type of arrangement will have much purchase beyond a foreign corporation with union ties as strong as VW.


November 13, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Block Replaced by McFerran

NLRBUnfortunate news today for Sharon Block, whose second nomination to the NLRB was pending in the Senate.  The White House has confirmed earlier reports that, facing Republican opposition based on the nutsy argument that she's unfit to serve because of the recess appointment issue, they are pulling her nomination.  Really too bad for many reasons, not least of which is that Sharon was and would be an excellent Board member.

The very important silver lining with this move is that the White House is nominating Lauren McFerran (chief labor counsel for the Senate's  Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee) for Block's slot.  It sounds like this is partly with the assent of Republicans which, if true, is very good news for the NLRB as a whole, in that it assures the agency of having a full complement of members.  Of course, it's unclear why it matters what the Republicans think given that the Democrats still have the majority during the lame duck session.  Perhaps this was a fig leaf from the White House, but I really don't know.

Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh


November 13, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

NLRB Rejects D.C.Circuit's FedEx Independent Contractor Analysis

NLRBLast week, the NLRB issued its decision in FedEx Home Delivery, the most recent case addressing FedEx's  attempts to classify its drivers as independent contractors. What's notable about this case is that the NLRB expressly refused to follow an earlier FedEx decision by the D.C. Circuit.  In that decision, the court rejected the traditional right-to-control focus of the common law test for employee status.  Instead, the court held that the principal focus was entreprenurial opportunity.  In its recent decision, the NLRB noted that its precedent, as well as the Supreme Court's, used the traditional common-law test.  Moreover, although entrepreneurial opportunity was one of the factors, the proper focus is on actual entrepreneurial opportunity, not the more theoretical opportunity that the court's decision turned on.

As I've written before, I'm no fan of the court's FedEx decision, so I'm glad to see this development.  There's a question whether this is a prelude to Supreme Court action in this area, which has gained increased attention.  I tend to think the Court won't step in any time soon, as it's precedent has been pretty clear on this issue, the D.C. Circuit notwithstanding.  But we'll see.  In in the meantime, it's baeen a bad month for FedEx on this issue, as they've some other cases involving their drivers' classifications.



October 8, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 6, 2014

SEALS call for participants

SEALS 2015The Southeastern Association of Law Schools holds its annual meeting every summer at the end of July/beginning of August, and planning for next year's programming has started. For the past several years, a workshop for labor and employment law has taken place over several of the days. Michael Green (Texas A & M) is helping to organize the workshop for next summer. If you are interested in participating, feel free to get in touch with him: Some suggestions already made include panels or discussion groups on whistleblowing, joint employer issues, termination for off-duty conduct (including recent NFL scandals), disability and UPS v. Young, and a junior scholars workshop.

One additional piece of programming already proposed is a discussion group on attractiveness issues in Employment Discrimination cases. Wendy Greene is helping to organize it, so get in touch with her if you are interested in participating on that topic.

And regardless of whether you get in touch with Michael or Wendy, you should think about proposing programming for the annual meeting if you are at all interested and regardless of the topic. The meeting is surprisingly (because of the lovely environs) substantive, and the environment is very relaxed and is designed to be egalitarian.  Here are the details:

The SEALS website is accepting proposals for panels or discussion groups for the 2015 meeting which will be held at the Boca Raton Resort & Club  Boca Raton, Florida, from July 27 to Aug. 2.  You can submit a proposal at any time.  However, proposals submitted prior to October 31st are more likely to be accepted.

This document explains how to navigate SEALS, explains the kinds of programs usually offered, and lays out the rules for composition of the different kinds of programming: Download Navigating submission. The most important things the Executive Director emphasizes are these:  First, SEALS strives to be both open and democratic.  As a result, any faculty member at a SEALS member or affiliate school is free to submit a proposal for a panel or discussion group.  In other words, there are no "section chairs" or "insiders" who control the submissions in particular subject areas.  If you wish to do a program on a particular topic, just organize your panelists or discussion group members and submit it through the SEALS website.  There are a few restrictions on the composition of panels (e.g., panels must include a sufficient number of faculty from member schools, and all panels and discussion groups should strive for inclusivity).  Second, there are no "age" or "seniority" restrictions on organizers.  As a result, newer faculty are also free to submit proposals.  Third, if you wish to submit a proposal, but don't know how to reach others who may have an interest in participating in that topic, let Russ Weaver know and he will try to connect you with other scholars in your area.


October 6, 2014 in Conferences & Colloquia, Disability, Employment Common Law, Employment Discrimination, Faculty News, Faculty Presentations, International & Comparative L.E.L., Labor Law, Pension and Benefits, Public Employment Law, Religion, Scholarship, Teaching, Wage & Hour, Workplace Trends | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Supreme Court grants cert in EEOC v. Abercrombie

ScotusThe Supreme Court granted cert in a number of cases today as a result of its long conference, including EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch. The cert question is this:

Whether an employer can be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice” only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer's actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee.

The district court had denied A & F's motion for summary judgment and granted the EEOC's, holding that, as a matter of law, A & F had failed to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an applicant for employment. The Tenth Circuit reversed, remanding and ordering the district court to enter summary judgment for A & F. The applicant, a young Muslim woman, wore a hijab, a head covering, and although the store manager recommended she be hired, a district manager decided that because she wore the hijab, she should not. He determined that the hijab would not comply with the company's "Look Policy." 

The Tenth Circuit held that summary judgment for A & F was proper because the applicant "never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her headscarf or 'hijab' for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice, due to a conflict between the practice and Abercrombie’s clothing policy." Interestingly, the store manager assumed that the applicant wore her hijab for religious reasons and never raised the issue during the interview. She also did not suggest that there might be a conflict between that practice and the "Look Policy," which the applicant otherwise could easily comply with.

The Court also granted cert in another case that might have implications for employment discrimination. The question in Texas Dep't of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusiveness Project is whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. The Fifth Circuit did not consider that question in the case. Instead, it followed its prior precedent that they were cognizable, and held that the legal standard to be used should be the regulations adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

So, overall, this term is shaping up to be another blockbuster for employment and labor. Here is a roundup.

Cases that directly deal with employment and labor questions:

And there is one additional case that might have implications for religious accommodations in the workplace. Holt v. Hobbs, which concerns whether a department of corrections policy that prohibits beards violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act insofar as it prohibits a man  from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.


October 2, 2014 in Beltway Developments, Employment Discrimination, Labor and Employment News, Labor Law, Labor/Employment History, Pension and Benefits, Public Employment Law, Religion, Wage & Hour, Worklife Issues | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, September 29, 2014

The NLRB Ducks Electronic Communications Issue--For Now

NLRBThe NLRB recently issued its decision in Purple Communications.  This was the case that the Board had indicated it was using to reexamine its Register-Guard precedent that gave employers virtually unfettered ability to bar employee use of employer electronic communication services.  Only it didn't.

In its Purple decision, the Board concluded that the employer's non-dispruption rule was overly broad and warranted overturning an election that the union had lost.  However, the Board decided not to address the employer's ban on electronic commnunications and the broader Register-Guard issue, holding it for "further consideration."

It's not clear why the NLRB decided to table the Register-Guard issue at this point.  It could be any number of things--for instance, a desire to resolve the election at issue sooner.  But those of us who have been interested in this issue, the bottom line is more waiting.


September 29, 2014 in Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, September 19, 2014

Joint-Employer Hearing

NLRBThe House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions held a hearing last week,  titled "Expanding Joint Employer Status: What Does it Mean for Workers and Job Creators?"  Among the speakers was Harris Freeman, who supported the NLRB's ability to expand the definition of joint employer, as the General Counsel is seeking in Browning-Ferris.  As we noted earlier, he also submitted an amicus brief to the NLRB on this issue.

The committee has released a video of the hearing, which includes all witnesses.


September 19, 2014 in Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)