Thursday, October 14, 2021

DC LERA Program Tomorrow: White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment

DcleraMany thanks to Tequila Brooks for sending word of this program. Speakers are Dan Pedrotty, who spent the last four months working on the White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment to be released next month; and Daniel Francis Pedrotty, Staff Director, White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment & Labor Policy Advisor, Vice President Kamala Harris. Register here.

rb

October 14, 2021 in Beltway Developments | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, April 9, 2021

DC LERA: Collaboration between Immigrant Worker Centers and Unions

Dc leraThanks once again to Tequila Brooks for sending word of DC LERA's program Labor’s New Kids on the Block: Collaboration between Immigrant Worker Centers and Unions. It will be online, April 21, 2021, 11:00-noon. Here's a brief description:

Join DC LERA for a conversation between Dr. Ben Kreider, Policy Consultant, and Discussant Carlos Jimenez of the AFL-CIO about immigrant worker centers, new forms of organizing, and collaboration between immigrant worker centers and unions. Dr. Kreider will be presenting his dissertation research on the subject.

rb

April 9, 2021 in Beltway Developments, Conferences & Colloquia, Union News, Wage & Hour | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, February 21, 2021

DCLERA: Covid's Impact on U.S. & German Metalworkers

DC-LERA-Steelworkers-50

Thanks to Tequila Brooks for letting us know about this upcoming D.C.-LERA program: Addressing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Workers in the German and US Metalworking Sectors. It will be February 24, 11:00 Eastern.

Join DC LERA for a comparative labor discussion with our guest Horst Mund, Director Transnational Department of the German trade union IG Metall, and DC LERA Board members Anja Wehler-Schoeck of the German Embassy in Washington, DC, and Stephen Silvia, Professor, School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC.

Tequila also tell us DC LERA has an exciting line-up of webinars for the spring: Germany in February, AFSCME in March, US Worker Centers in April, Spain in May, and Modern Labor Law Issues for Non-Standard and Excluded Workers in June. Stay tuned!

rb

February 21, 2021 in Beltway Developments | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

OTR Looking for Trade Policy Research Coordinator

OTRThanks to Colin Fenwick (ILO) for sending this notice that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has an opening for a Trade Policy Research Coordinator. Among other things, the person in this position will coordinate research and analysis on a variety of trade and investment issues relating to the assigned area [including labor], including by reviewing press and other source materials, international trade and investment trends and data, and policy developments in the assigned area, including matters related to specific trade policies in the assigned area.

rb

November 17, 2020 in Beltway Developments, International & Comparative L.E.L. | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 13, 2020

Doorey/Sachs/Block Webinar on the Future of U.S. Labor Law

Future

Join Professor David Doorey, Director of the Osgoode Professional Development LLM in Labour and Employment Law at York-Osgoode, for a conversation with Harvard Law School's Professors Ben Sachs and Sharon Block. The webinar will be November 21, 2020, 3:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. EST, and there is no charge.

In this interactive webinar, Professors Sachs and Block will:

  • Discuss the future of labour law in the United States
  • Analyze the recommendations for empowering working people, as outlined in their report, A Clean Slate for Worker Power: Building a Just Economy and Democracy, published by Harvard’s Labor and Worklife Program
  • Discuss their early post-election thoughts on what we can expect in terms of work law reforms under President-elect Biden.

Register here.

rb

November 13, 2020 in Beltway Developments, Faculty Presentations, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 9, 2020

Liebman to Speak at DC LERA

WilmaThanks to Tequila Brooks for letting us know that on Wednesday, 18 November at 5 pm EST, the DC Chapter of LERA @DCLERA will host a free webinar chat with Wilma Liebman, Former NLRB Chair and Incoming President of the US Labor and Employment Research Association. Details and registration are here.

rb

November 9, 2020 in Beltway Developments, Labor and Employment News, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, October 11, 2020

AFL-CIO & SEIU File ILO Complaint Against U.S. Government

IloThanks to Lance Compa for circulating this: The AFL-CIO and SEIU have filed a complaint with the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association against the Trump administration for violations of ILO standards on Freedom of Association in connection with the Covid-19 crisis in the workplace. Here is a Washington Post article on the complaint; here is the complaint itself.

rb

 

October 11, 2020 in Beltway Developments, International & Comparative L.E.L., Labor Law, Union News | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 28, 2020

Judge Barrett's Arbitration Decisions

BarrettLise Gelernter (Emeritus Professor & Visiting Scholar, Buffalo) sends this guest post about two arbitration decisions authored by SCOTUS nominee Amy Barrett: Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., No. 19-1564 (7th Cir. 2020) and Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage, No. 17-3609 (7th Cir. 2018):

On a substantive level unrelated to the confirmation of Judge Barrett, both decisions illustrate the intricacy of two of the many unanswered questions the Supreme Court has left concerning arbitration: 1) who falls under the exemption from the FAA for what the Court called "transportation workers"? and 2) which issues of "arbitrability" does a court or an arbitrator decide?

In the GrubHub case, Barrett, writing for the Seventh Circuit, said that "transportation workers" who are exempt from the FAA have to be in a class of workers involved in the interstate movement of goods, as is true of the seamen and railroad workers who are specifically exempted. Although it was not an issue in GrubHub, I think it should be pretty clear that the exemption also applies to transportation workers involved in the interstate movement of people as well as goods. Many of the seamen and railroad workers exempted specifically deal only or primarily with the interstate movement of people. Many airline workers considered to fall under the exemption for railroad workers (since both are covered by the Railway Labor Act) also deal primarily with moving people. There have been a few court decisions that say otherwise (including one that said Uber drivers who transport only passengers cannot fall under the FAA exemption), but I think they're dead wrong.

On the arbitrability issue, in the Herrington case, Judge Barrett walked a fine line between confirming prior 7th Circuit precedent that said an arbitrator has the authority to decide whether to consolidate a group of individual "bilateral" actions, and saying that only courts had the authority to decide the issue of whether an arbitration agreement permitted class and collective actions. Does it really make a difference if 1,000 Doordash drivers bring virtually identical individual arbitration claims that an arbitrator consolidates, or if those same 1,000 Doordash drivers bring a class or collective arbitration claim? I recognize there are some differences between those two scenarios, but I could see a different district or circuit court coming up with a different answer.

A lot of the confusion among the courts is that the Supreme Court left a mess when it, in my opinion, started to create more content for the FAA that it actually has (Circuit City, ATT Mobility v. Concepcion, etc.). Because the FAA does not really contain the substantive law that the Supreme Court majority has claimed it does, there are few clear answers to be found in the statute to the unanswered questions about arbitrator authority, FAA exemptions, invalidation of arbitration clauses or agreements and a myriad of other issues.

rb

September 28, 2020 in Arbitration, Beltway Developments | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, January 27, 2017

A Pro-Labor Trump Board?

MorrisUnlikely, but Charlie Morris (SMU emeritus) engages in some thoughtful, self-described wishful thinking. His essay over at onlabor is How President Trump Could Surprise with Improvement for the NLRB and a Boost for the Middle Class. Here's an excerpt:

Considering that [President Trump] won his election with the critical votes of many union men in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, what position will he likely take toward organized labor?  Probably no one, including Trump himself, knows the precise answer to that question, or whether he will continue or worsen the GOP’s endemic negative attitude toward unions.  My own view of what he might do—which is colored by my hope as to what I think he should do—stems from his previous labor-relations experience and public statements..., plus my tentative consideration and appraisal of his basic nature—which seems to be the same as President Obama’s, who said “I don’t think he is ideological.  Ultimately he is pragmatic.”  ....  I would therefore like to believe that he will apply [such pragmatism] to matters involving labor-relations, especially since he claims to “have great relationships with unions” and has expressed his disdain for so many major policies of the Republican establishment—but in truth I will be totally surprised if that happens.  If, however, Trump should prove to be a non-ideological President who will oppose[] key elements of the establishment—though his announcements  of major appointments to date suggest otherwise—he should be amenable to allowing the NLRB to function according to its true statutory policy rather than treating it in the manner of his Republican predecessors, all of whom appointed critical numbers of Board Members and NLRB General Counsels who were opposed to the NLRA’s basic policy of favoring collective bargaining, a practice that contributed substantially to the Board’s failure to adequately enforce the Act.

rb

 

January 27, 2017 in Beltway Developments, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Smith on Comey's Memo to Congress

T_smithFBI Director James Comey's decision to send a letter to Congress notifying it that he had been informed that emails that might be relevant to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private server while Secretary of State had been discovered in an unrelated investigation invoked a firestorm. Renewed (and overblown given the content of the letter and the source of the emails) charges of wrongdoing came from Republican candidates. Democrats pitched the issue as a partisan act, and suggestions by people from both parties have been made that Comey's actions may have broken the law or internal agency policies.

So what does this have to do with the workplace, you might ask? Terry Smith (DePaul) has a piece at Huffington Post looking at Comey's actions through an employment lens to explain How Every American Knows what Comey Did Was Wrong. It's a great piece on the unfairness connected with vague negative statements and their effects on hiring decisions that I think many of us can relate to. 

MM

November 2, 2016 in Beltway Developments, Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2016

The Final 4 (Billion Dollars in Lost Productivity)

Bball2

March Madness is upon us, and many of our fellow friends and colleagues are participating in the "madness" at varying levels.  Some fill out office pools, others sneak out to watch the games, and some stream the action live on their computers or phones.  All told, this workplace diversion is costing employers approximately four billion dollars annually, according to a study discussed at Forbes.com.  According to the study, the unprecedented access to games provided to workers under current technology has lead to increased losses for employers.  It is interesting to see efforts to quantify the workplace costs of the NCAA tournament, but are there any benefits as well?  I can think of a few, but feel free to hypothesize in the comments below or to discuss the impact of March Madness in the workplace, as we wait for the Sweet Sixteen games to begin in a few days...

-- Joe Seiner

March 21, 2016 in Beltway Developments | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

EEOC Sues for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

EEOC The EEOC issued a press release today, announcing that it has brought two cases alleging that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. From the press release:

The federal agency's Philadelphia District Office filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Scott Medical Health Center, and, in a separate suit, in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, against Pallet Companies, dba IFCO Systems NA.

In its suit against Scott Medical Health Center, EEOC charged that a gay male employee was subjected to harassment because of his sexual orientation. The agency said that the male employee's manager repeatedly referred to him using various anti-gay epithets and made other highly offensive comments about his sexuality and sex life. When the employee complained to the clinic director, the director responded that the manager was "just doing his job," and refused to take any action to stop the harassment, according to the suit. After enduring weeks of such comments by his manager, the employee quit rather than endure further harassment.

In its suit against IFCO Systems, EEOC charged that a lesbian employee was harassed by her supervisor because of her sexual orientation. Her supervisor made numerous comments to her regarding her sexual orientation and appearance, such as "I want to turn you back into a woman" and "You would look good in a dress," according to the suit. At one point, the supervisor blew a kiss at her and circled his tongue at her in a suggestive manner, EEOC alleged. The employee complained to management and called the employee hotline about the harassment. IFCO fired the female employee just a few days later in retaliation for making the complaints, EEOC charged.

These cases are an outgrowth of the agency's decision in the federal sector case Baldwin v. Dep't of Transp., Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015). In that case, EEOC held that Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation because:

(1) sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex because sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex; (2) sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in non-compliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based in such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.

 The EEOC has also been filing amicus briefs in private cases urging the courts to accept this argument, most recently in Burrows v. The College of Central Florida and Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, both in the 11th Circuit. Accepting it would mean that the courts could stop struggling with trying to distinguish between sex stereotyping cases that are cognizable because they are really about sex and sex stereotyping cases that are not cognizable because they are about sex but also sexual orientation.

MM

March 1, 2016 in Beltway Developments, Employment Discrimination, Labor and Employment News, Workplace Trends | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 21, 2015

The 2015 Marco Biagi Award

The winner of the 2015 Marco Biagi Award is Uladzislau Belavusau (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands) for a paper entitled A Penalty Card for Homophobia from EU Labor Law: Comment on Asociaţia ACCEPT (C-81/12). In the paper, the author provides a detailed analysis of Asociaţia ACCEPT, an important case from the Court of Justice of the European Union on sexual orientation discrimination. The Court held (1) that an employer could be found liable for the discriminatory statement of a person who is publicly perceived as playing a leading role for the employer, even though the person does not have the legal capacity to bind the employer and (2) that national rules prohibiting such discrimination must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. Professor Belavusau evaluates the case as an example of cause lawyering that could be used as a model of legal mobilization for LGBT advocates and for other social movements.

 The International Association of Labor Law Journals sponsors the Marco Biagi Award in honor of one of the founders of the Association: Marco Biagi, a distinguished labor lawyer and a victim of terrorism because of his commitment to social justice. A list of the member journals of the International Association can be found at http://www.labourlawjournals.com.

This year’s winner was chosen by an academic jury composed of Frank Hendrickx (Belgium), Alan Neal (UK), and György Kiss (Hungary).

Prior winners of the Marco Biagi Award were:

2014    Lilach Lurie (Bar-Ilan University, Israel), Do Unions Promote Gender Equality?

 Specially Noted  ̶   Isabelle Martin (University of Montreal, Canada), Corporate Social Rsponsibility as Work Law? A Critical Assessment in the Light of the Principle of Human Dignity

 2013    Aline Van Bever (University of Leuven, Belgium), The Fiduciary Nature of the Employment Relationship

 2012    Diego Marcelo Ledesma Iturbide (Buenos Aires University, Argentina), Una propuesta para la reformulación de la conceptualización tradicional de la relación de trabajo a partir del relevamiento de su especificidad jurídica

 Specially Noted  ̶  Apoorva Sharma (National Law University, India), Towards an Effective Definition of Forced Labor

2011    Beryl Ter Haar (Universiteit Leiden, the Netherlands), Attila Kun (Károli Gáspár University, Hungary) & Manuel Antonio Garcia-Muñoz Alhambra (University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain), Soft On The Inside; Hard For the Outside.An Analysis of the Legal Nature of New Forms of International Labour Law  

Specially Noted  ̶  Mimi Zou (Oxford University, Great Britain), Labour Relations With “Chinese  Characteristics”? Chinese Labour  Law at an Historic Crossroad 

2010    Virginie Yanpelda, (Université de Douala, Cameroun), Travail décent et diversité des rapports de travail

 Specially Noted  ̶  Marco Peruzzi (University of Verona, Italy), Autonomy in the European social dialogue.

2009    Orsola Razzolini (Bocconi University, Italy), The Need to Go Beyond the Contract:  “Economic” and “Bureaucratic” Dependence in Personal Work Relations

 CAS

 

 

 

May 21, 2015 in Beltway Developments, Conferences & Colloquia | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Oral Argument transcript in Mach Mining

ScotusThe Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Mach Mining v. EEOC, which you might remember from some of our prior posts (also here) and a guest post by Commissioner Feldblum. The transcript has been posted on the Supreme Court's website, and you can read it here. The case was about the EEOC's concilation process and whether that process is judicially reviewable.

I've read through and have some initial impressions. Even though the EEOC is the respondent here, I'm going to start with its arguments because there was significantly more back and forth with the Justices and the EEOC than with the Justices and counsel for the employer, Tom Goldstein. The EEOC has taken an understandable but difficult position, that it cannot file suit unless it has tried and been unable to conciliate on terms it desires. The EEOC asserted that it had a duty to attempt to conciliate, but that essentially, as long as it sent a letter to the employer notifying it that the EEOC had found cause to believe discrimination had occurred in connection with the charge and asking the employer to get in touch, that duty was satisfied. Counsel for the EEOC conceded that this did not seem to be much for judicial review, but argued that even in courts that used a minimal good faith standard, those courts were getting bogged down in mini-trials attempting to assess the quality of the conciliation efforts, something the statute provides no sort of standards for, since the statutory language gives the EEOC has the sole discretion to decide whether any potential terms of resolution are acceptable to it. Counsel for the EEOC was pressed repeatedly to articulate what should be required to ensure that the EEOC actually attempted to conciliate. Chief Justice Roberts, especially was wary of trusting the word of the agency that it had acted in good faith, and Justice Breyer was as well, although to a lesser degree.

With counsel for the employer, the Justices focused primarily on how to frame the issue as a matter of administrative law, since the statute contains no standards for review, nor does it define this conduct as a final agency action. Additionally, the statute requires that the EEOC keep conciliation matters secret and prohibits information about the conciliation process to be used as evidence at trial. 

In terms of Supreme Court bingo, predicting how the Justices will vote, I feel fairly confident that Chief Justice Roberts would vote to overturn the Seventh Circuit. I also feel fairly confident that Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are more sympathetic to the EEOC's position but might be willing to create some kind of standard more than what the Seventh Circuit required. Justice Kennedy questioned the employer's counsel pretty heavily, and Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia did the same for both sides.

One last observation. Developing a specialty in Supreme Court litigation will make you one smooth advocate. As a former appellate advocate, I have to say that Tom Goldstein (of Goldstein & Russell also founder of SCOTUSblog)'s argument was incredible to read. 

MM

January 13, 2015 in Beltway Developments, Employment Discrimination, Labor and Employment News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Oral Argument in Young v. UPS

ScotusThe Court heard oral argument in Young v. UPS (argued in part by Sam Bagenstos (Michigan)) this morning, and the transcript is now available on the Court's website. I've read it and am not entirely sure what to conclude. One analogy made by Justice Scalia, and used throughout the argument was "most favored nation" status. Does the second clause in the PDA, which requires that pregnant workers be treated the same as other workers similar in their ability or inability to work, require that pregnant workers be treated the same as the best treated of those others? Or can they be treated as least favored nations -- as long as there is a group of workers similar in their ability or inability to work that is treated poorly, pregnant workers can be treated poorly too? The policy at issue allowed light duty accommodations for workers injured on the job, but required those injured off the job who couldn't lift heavy things to take unpaid leave. So there was a distinction within the group of workers similar in their ability or inability to work that was not related to pregnancy. At the same time, the policy weeded out all pregnancy limitations. Moreover, there were two exceptions to the off-the-job part. If the off-the-job injury resulted in a disability under the ADA, or a DOT decertification, the injury was accommodated.

There was a significant amount of back and forth about what that second clause means, since it's not a full fledged accommodation requirement like the religious accommodations in Title VII or the accommodation requirement of the ADA. At the same time, it has to mean something more than simply that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is discrimination on the basis of sex, since that's what the first clause says. And clearly the effect of the PDA on the Court's decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert is still under debate. I'm making no predictions, but I'd be interested in your insights in the comments.

MM

December 3, 2014 in Beltway Developments, Disability, Employment Discrimination | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Oral Argument in Integrity Solutions

SecurityAs Jason previewed yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, a case about whether end-of-shift security screenings are compensable or non-compensable as postliminary activities under the Portal to Portal Act. The oral argument transcript is now up on the Supreme Court's website for your reading pleasure.

I've skimmed it and have just a few observations. The questions for the employer's counsel and the Solicitor General pushed them to distinguish this security process from things like closing out a cash register or showering after working with chemicals (compensable). The questions for the employees' counsel pushed for a distinction between this and the process to clock out (not compensable). The one main takeaway for me is that the concepts in this area are especially slippery. What does it mean for something to be a principal activity of one's work, for example. Is it the central thing a person is hired to do, or might it be more task focused? Does the location of the conduct matter? Does it help to think about whether the person is waiting to be engaged or engaged to wait? Everyone at the argument tried to come up with a definition, but words failed them, and examples seemed the only way to talk about the rules. Those examples were hard to generalize from, though, leading the argument in circles several times.

Ultimately, I think the decision will ultimately rest on whether a majority of the justices see this as more like clocking out or like showering off chemicals at shift's end.

MM

October 8, 2014 in Beltway Developments, Wage & Hour | 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.

MM

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)

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Cancelosi & Garden Amicus in M&G Polymers

Susan Cancelosi & Charlotte Garden write to say they are working on an amicus brief in M&G Polymers v. Tackett, a case concerning the ongoing validity of the Yard-Man presumption in interpreting collective bargaining agreement clauses that promise retiree health benefits.  The brief focuses on the initial negotiation of many retiree health benefits clauses during the 1960s and 1970s, offering context that explains why employers may have agreed to lifetime retiree health benefits during that key period of time.

If you would like to see the brief so that you can decide whether you would like to sign on, please contact Charlotte at gardenc@seattleu.edu by Saturday, Sept. 20; the brief is due to be filed on Monday, Sept. 22.

MM

September 17, 2014 in Beltway Developments, Faculty News, Labor Law, Labor/Employment History, Pension and Benefits | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Obama Wins Noel Canning ...

Greenhouse... according to Linda Greenhouse in today's New York Times. See Tragedy or Triumph (hat tip: Tom Cochrane). I think she makes a persuasive case. Comments are welcome.

rb

September 4, 2014 in Beltway Developments, Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Post-Hobby Lobby, Court Says Religious Non-Profit Need Not Notify Insurer that It Objects to Coverage

ScotusThe Court has taken a number of actions already since issuing its decision in Hobby Lobby that suggest future directions on the issue in that case.  First, the Court acted on six cert. petitions. As Lyle Denniston notes on ScotusBlog, the court remanded three cases to the courts of appeal, and denied cert in three. All six cases involved employers who objected to coverage for all forms of contraception, as well as sterilization for women, and pregnancy counselling. In the three won by employers, the Court denied cert. In the three won by the government, the Court ordered the courts of appeal to reconsider in light of the Hobby Lobby decision.

And today, the Court issued an additional order. In Wheaton College v. Burwell, the Court granted an injunction to this religious educational institution against enforcement of the women's preventive care provisions objected to, absolving the College from filling out the government's form and delivering notice to its insurer. The government's brief in opposition is here.

Particularly notable was a dissent by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan. In it, the three justices note that the Court had indicated in Hobby Lobby that the accommodation which required an employer to notify its insurer that it objected to certain coverage was less restrictive, implying that it would satisfy RFRA. As Justice Sotomoayor noted, 

After expressly relying on the availability of thereligious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates RFRA as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might . . . , retreats from that position. That action evinces disregard for even the newest of this Court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution.

The whole dissent is worth a read. 

MM

July 3, 2014 in Beltway Developments, Employment Discrimination, Pension and Benefits, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)