LEL News-Jul09

The full text of many cases is now available free on-line. Where that is the case, links are provided.

Discrimination and Remedies under the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)

A recent case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals does a nice job laying out the burdens of proof for claims of discrimination and the remedies available under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The case involved a railroad employee who was a member of the Tennessee Army National Guard who claimed he was discharged because of his military service. The USERRA prohibits taking adverse employment actions if obligations in the uniformed services is "a" motivating factor.

First, The court concluded that the plaintiff had presented evidence that he was discharged because of his military service based on (1) statements from the supervisor responsible for firing him that he was taking too much time off for the military and (2) the close timing between the time of his service and discharge. The court emphasized that the plaintiff has a lower burden of proof under USERRA than under other discrimination laws. Hance v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Case No.07-5475 (6th Cir. July 1, 2009) http://www.michbar.org/opinions/us_appeals/2009/070109/43166.pdf

Second, the court rejected the employer’s defense that the court should defer to an arbitrator’s award finding that the discharge did not violate the collective bargaining agreement. The court held that deference is certainly due to an arbitrator’s interpretation of collective bargaining provisions. However, deference was not required here, because the issues were whether USERRA was violated, not whether the collective bargaining agreement’s terms were violated.

Finally, in order to decide issues of remedy, the court turned to case law under Title VII, because there were no prior cases in the Sixth Circuit on the remedy issues here. It held that plaintiffs bears the initial burden of proving damages and are entitled to the amount claimed unless the employer can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a plaintiff is not entitled to the damages. In this case, the employer failed to show that the plaintiff’s evidence on backpay was not credible. The court also held that the plaintiff’s damages should not be offset by his parttime military earnings because he had military earnings during the time he had worked for the employer in addition to his pay. As a result, his parttime military earnings were not a substitute for his regular pay. The court explained: "We are persuaded by this logic, because the purpose of a back-pay award in discrimination cases is to ‘make the claimant whole, that is, to place him in the position he would have been in but for discrimination.’" The decision also discusses other issues related to the calculation of USERRA back pay and lost fringe benefits. It also found that fringe benefits should be based on the plaintiff’s actual cost for the lost benefits rather than the cost of fringe benefits to his employer.

A recent case of an employee who used her company laptop to email her lawyers about a lawsuit she was considering filing against her employer makes for interesting reading. The court noted that she used her password-protected personal account to send the email messages, showing that she made efforts to keep them private. The employer’s handbook, on the other hand said that emails on company computers were the employer’s property and neither private nor personal to employees. The court held that her former employer had no right to access the emails sent from her company laptop, because they were protected by the attorney-client privilege. It also said that handbooks do not give employers limitless power over employees. Employer rights are still limited to employer legitimate interests and must be balanced by employees’ reasonable expectations of privacy. Here, rights also included society’s interest in protecting attorney-client communications. Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Case No.A-3506-08T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 26, 2009). http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3506-08.pdf

The court said: "Property rights are no less offended when an employer examines documents stored on a computer as when an employer rifles through a folder containing an employee's private papers or reaches in and examines the contents of an employee's pockets; indeed, even when a legitimate business purpose could support such a search, we can envision no valid precept of property law that would convert the employer's interest in determining what is in those locations with a right to own the contents of the employee's folder of private papers or the contents of his pocket. As a result, we conclude a breach of a company policy with regard to the use of its computers does not justify the company's claim of ownership to personal communications and information accessible therefrom or contained therein."

The court’s order required "the turnover of all emails exchanged by plaintiff and her attorney that are now in possession of either the company, the company's attorneys, or their agents or employees. The order should also direct the deletion of all these emails from any computer hard drives upon which they were stored. We also remand for a hearing to determine whether [the employer’s law firm] should be disqualified from further representing the company." Attorney ethical obligations require that, when they receive documents of this sort, they are required to stop reading them and return them to their owner.

Breaking up Is Hard to Do - Trade Secrets, Departing Employees, and the Duty of Loyalty

A number of problems regularly occur together when employees leave their employer, and a recent case from North Dakota provides a good example of those problems in the areas of duty of loyalty, trade secrets, and tortious interference with business advantage. These cases are also often won or lost based on whether the former employer can get an injunction. Note that these are state law issues, so some details may vary from state to state. CDI Energy Services, Inc. v. West River Pumps Inc., Case No.08-1031 (8th Cir. May 29, 2009)

Briefly, three employees were sued after they left to start a competing company. Ironically, in 2000, the plaintiff employer here had encouraged two of the employees to jump ship from another employer and bring clients with them. By the time those employees left this employer to start their own business, those purloined customers were a large part of the plaintiff employer’s business in this area.

In 2007, before they started their own business and while still working for the plaintiff, the three defendants solicited their employer’s clients to bring their accounts to them. The plaintiff claimed they had also stolen secret information, including customer lists and contact information, business strategies, customer repair and purchase histories, and pricing information.

The causes of action of breach of the duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and interference with business advantage, are not good descriptions of what violates the law. It is important to understand that these causes of action cannot be used to destroy a new competitor, because our market system values competition.

First, the breach of duty of loyalty is not about loyalty as we tend to think of it. The violation applies only when employees actually compete with their employer while still employed. Employees are allowed to prepare to compete while still working for an employer. In other words, an employee may not solicit fellow employees and customers to jump ship, while still on the employer’s payroll, but once an employee has left it is permissible to solicit the former employer’s customers and fellow employees. The duty of loyalty cannot be used to shackle an employee to an employer. That would be anti-competitive and would harm the public interest in promoting competition.

Second, the law gives an employer protections for its rights in intellectual property that does not qualify as patentable, as long as they qualify as trade secrets. Trade secrets have economic value, and that economic value exists, in part, because the information is not generally and easily known. Common trade secrets are customer lists and pricing and business strategies. Trade secrets are only protected if an employer can show that it has made every effort to keep the information secret, that the information has value because it is secret, and that the information cannot be discovered by proper means. The court held, that in this case, the identities of customers were well known and, therefore, not trade secrets.

Finally, the court found that injunctive relief was not an appropriate remedy even though the employer had shown that the former employees violated their duty of loyalty. To understand why, it helps to know that remedies in our legal system generally fall into two broad and hierarchical categories: (1) "legal" or common law remedies, which developed through the courts during the Middle Ages in England, and (2) equitable remedies, which were created to fill gaps in the legal system. Equitable remedies are generally only available if there is no legal remedy for the problem. Legal remedies usually involve money damages that make a plaintiff whole for injuries that have already happened, while equitable remedies are forward looking to prevent injury and include injunctions. Therefore, to get an equitable remedy, a plaintiff / petitioner must show that there is no "adequate remedy at law" and that an injunction is required to prevent irreparable harm.

In this case, the court found that harm to the employer from the breach of duty of loyalty in soliciting clients had already occurred, and the court could not order clients to leave the defendants and return to the plaintiff. As a result, damages were the appropriate remedy.

A recent case provides a reminder to employers to check regulations under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) before taking actions or creating rules related to family and medical leave. In a recent case, an employer ran afoul of the law by requiring an employee to turn in documentation to verify her condition – after her leave had been approved – by giving her only three days from the employer’s request. FMLA regulations give employees 15 days to turn in documentation. A useful webpage on FMLA and USERRA rights is http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

The Arizona Supreme Court recently addressed a common workers compensation issue – whether compensation is required when a spouse provides care services to an injured employee. In this case, the wife of the injured employee regularly provided care during periods when paid attendants were not in the house, including being required to wake up during the night to check her husband’s oxygen levels, help him to the bathroom, and clean him when he soiled himself. Carbajal v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, Case No.CV-08-0359-PR (Ariz. June 15, 2009).

The court’s opinion was based on an examination of the statute’s wording and purpose. It referred to prior case law that the courts "construe workers’ compensation statutes liberally ‘with a view of effectuating their evident purpose of placing the burden of injury and death upon industry’". The court concluded: "The [Workers Compensation] Carrier’s claim that services are compensable when performed by Carrier-provided attendants, but not when performed by Mrs. Carbajal, therefore must turn on her status as Mr. Carbajal’s spouse. Yet the statute creates no such distinction. The statute speaks only in terms of goods and services. The compensability of services inquiry should focus on the nature of the services provided, not on the identity of the service provider. If an injured worker requires services compensable under § 23-1062(A), then the employer must provide them. If the employer fails to do so and thus puts that burden on the injured employee’s spouse, compensation for the necessary services is required by the statute. Those services provided by Mrs. Carbajal that would constitute compensable palliative care if performed by the Carrier-paid attendants are thus compensable."

PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Research Institute, Behind the Numbers: Medical Costs Trends for 2010

Government Accountability Office, Influenza Pandemic: Increased Agency Accountability Could Help Protect Federal Employees Serving the Public in the Event of a Pandemic GAO-09-404, June 12, 2009 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09404.pdf

Government Accountability Office, Influenza Pandemic: Greater Agency Accountability Needed to Protect Federal Workers in the Event of a Pandemic GAO-09-783T, June 16, 2009 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09783t.pdf

Government Accountability Office, OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better Ensure Program Quality GAO-09-395, May 20, 2009 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09395.pdf

Richard A. Siegel, Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Operations-Management, Processing of Unfair Labor Practice Charges Arising out of the Current Dispute Involving UNITE HERE, Workers United and SEIU, Memorandum OM 09-68(CH) June 18, 2009

Kathleen S. Swendiman & Nancy Lee Jones, The 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Outbreak: Selected Legal Issues R40560, May 4, 2009 Congressional Research Service

Tiaji Salaam-Blyther, The 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) "Swine Flu" Outbreak: U.S. Responses to Global Human Cases R40588, May 26, 2009 Congressional Research Service http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40588.pdf

Nancy Lee Jones & Jon O. Shimabukuro, Quarantine and Isolation: Selected Legal Issues Relating to Employment RL33609, May 11, 2009

Congressional Research Service, How Would Medicare Part B Premiums Be Affected If There Is No Social Security COLA? R40561 May 04, 2009 http://opencrs.com/document/R40561/

Congressional Research Service, The 2009 H1N1 \"Swine Flu\" Outbreak: An Overview R40554 April 30, 2009 http://opencrs.com/document/R40554/

Congressional Research Service, Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress RL30631 October 28, 2008 http://opencrs.com/document/RL30631

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Going Green: Safe and Healthy Jobs

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009: a Blueprint for Investment and Reform June 18, 2009

RECENT LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW ARTICLES

Iman Ali, Bringing down the "Maternal Wall": Reforming the FMLA to Provide Equal Employment Opportunities for Caregivers, 27 Law & Ineq. 181 (2009)

Jean Allain, The Definition of Slavery in International Law, 52 How. L.J. 239 (2009)

Catherine Archibald, De-clothing Sex-based Classifications – Same-sex Marriage Is Just the Beginning: Achieving Formal Sex Equality in the Modern Era, 36 N. Ky. L. Rev. 1 (2009)

Jonathan Barron, Note. Amending No Child Left Behind to Prevent School Rezoning and Resegregation: A Response to the Tuscaloosa City Schools, 42 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 373 (2009)

Michael Blackwell, Comment: Insurance, Employment, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. 55 Loy. L. Rev. 125 (2009)

Rochelle Bobroff, Section 1983 and Preemption: Alternative Means of Court Access for Safety Net Statutes, 10 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 27 (2008)

Nancy Bonnett, Native American Retirement Plans: the Law in the Aftermath of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, 1 Phoenix L. Rev. 147 (2008)

Hannah Bowles & Kathleen McGinn, Gender in Job Negotiations: A Two-level Game, 24 Negotiation J. 393 (2008)

Todd Brower, Social Cognition "At Work": Schema Theory and Lesbian and Gay Identity in Title VII, 18 Law & Sexuality 1 (2009)

Michael Cabin, Note. Labor Rights in the Peru Agreement: Can Vague Principles Yield Concrete Change? 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1047 (2009)

Catherine Caifano, Comment: When the Music Stops, Why Not Require Certain Title VII Plaintiffs to Find a Chair on Which to Rest Their Complaint? 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 505 (2009)

Aaron Catabagan, Rights of Action for Private Non-State Actors in the WTO Dispute Settlement System, 37 Denv. J. Intl'l L. & Pol'y 279 (2009)

J.S. Christie, Preparing for and Prevailing at an Arbitration Hearing, 32 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 265 (2008)

Michael Cooper, Comment: Class-less? An Analysis of the California Supreme Court's Denial of Employers' Right to Use Class Arbitration Waivers in Employment Agreements in Gentry v. Superior Court, 2 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. 459 (2009)

Benjamin Crouse, Comment: Worksite Raids and Immigration Norms: A "Sticky" Problem, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 591 (2009)

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, et alia, "Old and Making Hay:" The Results of the Pro Bono Institute Firm Survey on the Viability of a "Second Acts" Program to Transition Attorneys to Retirement Through Pro Bono Work, 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 321 (2009)

Nestor Davidson, Values and Value Creation in Public-Private Transactions, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 937 (2009)

Kristin Davis, Note. The Emperor Is Still Naked: Why the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa Leaves Women Exposed to More Discrimination, 42 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 949 (2009)

Anniek De Ruijter, The Business of Health Care in the United States: What Is Wrong with the Standard of Economic Efficiency? 10 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 87 (2008)

Andrew Dulberg, Note: The Popcorn Lung Case Study: a Recipe for Regulation? 33 N.Y.U.. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 87 (2009)

Samuel Estreicher, "Think Global, Act Local": Employee Representation in a World of Global Labor and Product Market Competition, 4 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 81 (2009)

Andrew Finkelman, Suing the Hired Guns: an Analysis of Two Federal Defenses to Tort Lawsuits Against Military Contractors, 34 Brook. J. Int'l L. 395 (2009)

Sheryl Floyd, et alia 2008 Government Contract Decisions of the Federal Circuit, 58 Am. U. L. Rev. 1051 (2009)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Muller v. Oregon: One Hundred Years Later, 45 Willamette L. Rev. 359 (2009)

John Griffee, Comment: Against the Grain: the Arkansas Supreme Court Resists the Judicial Movement to Enforce Mandatory-Arbitration Provisions in Employment Contracts, 62 Ark. L. Rev. 381 (2009)

C.J. Griffin, Note: Workplace Restroom Policies in Light of New Jersey's Gender Identity Protection, 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 409 (2009)

Amar Gupta & Deth Sao, Anti-Offshoring Legislation and United States Federalism: The Constitutionality of Federal and State Measures Against Global Outsourcing of Professional Services, 44 Tex. Int'l L.J. 629 (2009)

Michael Halpin, Note: Is the Living Wage Dead in Detroit? The Role of Stare Decisis, Home Rule, and Policy Preferences in the Michigan Supreme Court, 2009 U. Ill. L. Rev. 911

Ann Hendrix & Josh Buck, Comment: Employer-Sponsored Wellness Programs: Should Your Employer Be the Boss of More than Your Work? 38 Sw. L. Rev. 465 (2009)

Michael Hilkin, Note: The NLRB’s Oil Capitol and Toering Decisions and Their Effects on Unionization and American Labor Law, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 1051 (2009)

Claire Hill, Bargaining in the Shadow of a Lawsuit: a Social Norms Theory of Incomplete Contracts, 34 Del. J. Corp. L. 191 (2009)

Susan Hippenstelle, Revisiting the Promise of Mediation for Employment Discrimination Claims, 9 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 211 (2009)

Ami Janda, Note: Keeping a Productive Labor Market: Crafting Recognition and Rights for Mentally Ill Workers, 30 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 403 (2008)

Minna Kotkin, Diversity and Discrimination: a Look at Complex Bias, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1439 (2009)

Laura Kray & Connson Locke, To Flirt or Not to Flirt? Sexual Power at the Bargaining Table, 24 Negotiation J. 483 (2008)

Konrad Lee, et alia, Emerging Limitations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act, 55 Loy. L. Rev. 23 (2009)

Ruby Lee, Note: New Trends in Global Outsourcing of Commercial Surrogacy: A Call for Regulation, 20 Hastings Women's L.J. 275 (2009)

Stephen Lee, Private Immigration Screening in the Workplace, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 1103 (2009)

Maegan Lindsey, Comment: The Family and Medical Leave Act: Who Really Cares? 50 S. Tex. L. Rev. 559 (2009)

Lin Lin, Comment: All Is Well in Massachusetts? Diagnosing the Effects of the 2006 Employer Mandate on Health Care Reform Efforts, 25 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 406 (2009)

Orly Lobel, Citizenship, Organizational Citizenship, and the Laws of Overlapping Obligations, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 433 (2009)

Rick Lopez, Comment: Signing Bonus Skimming and a Premature Call for a Global Draft in Major League Baseball, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 349 (2009)

Joshua Mandelbaum, Note: Stuck in a Bind: Can the Arbitration Fairness Act Solve the Problems of Mandatory Binding Arbitration in the Consumer Context? 94 Iowa L. Rev. 1075 (2009)

Jacob Meyer, Note. "Drive-by Jurisdictional Rulings": The Procedural Nature of Comprehensive-Remedial-Scheme Preclusion in Section 1983 Claims, 42 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 415 (2009)

Ryan Meyer, Comment: The United States Supreme Court Eliminates the "Class of One" Equal Protection Claim in Public Employment, 48 Washburn L.J. 529 (2009)

Gerald Moody, Note: Writing Is Reading Is Writing: Two Applications of the Parole Evidence Rule to Collective Bargaining Agreements, 2009 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 326

Andrew Morriss, et alia, Green Jobs Myths, 16 Mo. Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 326 (2009)

Monica Moukalif, Note. See No Evil: Applying a Labor Lens to Prostitute Organizing, 20 Hastings Women's L.J. 253-274 (2009)

Hal Movius, The Effectiveness of Negotiation Training, 24 Negotiation J. 509 (2008)

Christopher Murrer, Comment: A Call for Uniform Application of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Does Title II Support a Claim for Employment Discrimination? 47 Duq. L. Rev. 115 (2009)

Katherine O'Brien, Note: No Match? No Thanks: How the Department of Homeland Security's No-Match Rule Puts the Jobs of Legal Immigrants in Jeopardy, 2009 U. Ill. L. Rev. 975

Nicole Occhuizzo, Taxing Tenure: an Examination of How the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) Has Been Applied to Tenure Buyouts, 62 Tax Law. 189 (2008)

Robin Organek, Congressional Response to WTO Sanctions: Turning Lemons into Lemonade in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, 16 Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 129 (2008)

Rachel Osterman, Comment: Origins of a Myth: Why Courts, Scholars, and the Public Think Title VII 's Ban on Sex Discrimination Was an Accident, 20 Yale J.L. & Feminism 409 (2009)

David Pardo, Judicial Discretion in Talmudic Times and the Modern Era, 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 429 (2009)

Alan Pearce & Michael Pagano, Accelerated Wireless Broadband Infrastructure Deployment: The Impact on GDP and Employment, 18 Media L. & Pol'y 105 (2009)

Robert Rhee, Toward Procedural Optionality: Private Ordering of Public Adjudication, 84 N.Y.U.. L. Rev. 514 (2009)

Leonard Riskin, Awareness and Ethics in Dispute Resolution and Law: Why Mindfulness Tends to Foster Ethical Behavior, 50 S. Tex. L. Rev. 493 (2009)

Tyson Roan, Anything but Doomed: Why Restrictions on Offshoring Are Permissible under the Constitution and Trade Agreements, 13 Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J. 209 (2009)

Andrew Robinson, Comment: Language, National Origin, and Employment Discrimination: the Importance of the EEOC Guidelines, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1513 (2009)

Tanya Rosenblat, The Beauty Premium: Physical Attractiveness and Gender in Dictator Games, 24 Negotiation J. 465 (2008)

Jesse Rothstein & Albert Yoon, Affirmative Action in Law School Admissions: What Do Racial Preferences Do? 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 649 (2008)

Mitchell Rubinstein, Duty of Fair Representation Jurisprudential Reform: The Need to Adjudicate Disputes in Internal Union Review Tribunals and the Forgotten Remedy of Re-Arbitration, 42 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 517 (2009)

John Sanchez, 2007-2008 Survey of Florida Public Employment Law, 22 Nova L. Rev. 169 (2008)

Matthew Schuman, Note. Can Global Warming Laws Redistribute Wealth? 18 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 463 (2009)

Benedict Sheehy & Jackson Maogoto, The Private Military Company – Unravelling the Theoretical, Legal & Regulatory Mosaic, 15 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L. 147 (2008)

Kris Steckman, Comment: Market-Based Prediction Models as an Aid to Litigation Strategy and Settlement Negotiations, 2 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. 244 (2008)

Alison Stein, Women Lawyers Blog for Workplace Equality: Blogging as a Feminist Legal Method, 20 Yale J.L. & Feminism 357 (2009)

Donald Stone, The Disabled Lawyers Have Arrived; Have They Been Welcomed with Open Arms into the Profession? An Empirical Study of the Disabled Lawyer, 27 Law & Ineq. 93 (2009)

Wilma Sur, Hawai'i's Masters and Servants Act: Brutal Slavery? 31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 87 (2008)

Symposium. Process and Procedure in Wto Dispute Settlement, 42 Cornell Int'l L.J. 1 (2009)

Symposium on the Proposed Restatement of Employment Law, 13 Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J. 1 (2009)

Catherine Tinsley, et alia, Women at the Bargaining Table: Pitfalls and Prospects, 25 Negotiation J. 233 (2009)

Evan Turgeon, Note: Boom and Bust for Whom?: the Economic Philosophy Behind the 2008 Financial Crisis, 4 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 141 (2009)

Jonan Van Der Vyver, The Binding Force of Economic and Social Rights Listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 30 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 125 (2008)

Steven Van Roosbroek & Steven Van De Walle, The Relationship Between Ombudsman, Government, and Citizens: A Survey Analysis, 24 Negotiation J. 287 (2008)

Brian Van Wyk, Note: We're Friends, Right? Client List Misappropriation and Online Social Networking in the Workplace, 11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 743 (2009)

John Wade, Defining Success in Negotiation and Other Dispute Resolution Training, 25 Negotiation J. 171 (2009)

Andrew, Ward, et alia, Acknowledging the Other Side in Negotiation, 24 Negotiation J. 269 (2008)

Stephen Weiss, Mega-Simulations in Negotiation Teaching: Extraordinary Investments with Extraordinary Benefits, 24 Negotiation J. 325 (2008)

Isaac Young, Note. Shut up and Sing: the Rights of Japanese Teachers in an Era of Conservative Educational Reform, 42 Cornell Int'l L.J. 157 (2009)

Lynn Zehrt, A Decade Later: Adarand and Croson and the Status of Minority Preferences in Government Contracting, 21 Nat'l Black L.J. 1 (2009)

Future Newsletters

Ellen Dannin Photo

To include your news related to legal issues and developments affecting labor and employment, contact Ellen Dannin by email or by postmail at:
Ellen Dannin, Professor of Law
Pennsylvania State University
Dickinson School of Law
311 Beam Building
University Park, PA 16802-1912

The LERA LEL Section Newsletter, Labor and the Law, is available each month
via the LERA email listserv and on the LERA website.

It is edited by Ellen Dannin, Fannie Weiss Distinguished Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law, Penn State.
Back issues of of LEL and LERA newsletters can be accessed at the Newsletters Index.

To subscribe to the LERA email listserv,
go to the LERA website and click on "Listervs" and follow the instructions.

The LEL News may be reposted but only if it includes the copyright notice,
the entire document or unaltered sections of the document, and the source.

July 2009 Labor and Employment Law News

RECENT LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW ARTICLES

Future Newsletters

July 2009
Labor and Employment Law News