Labor and the Law Newsletter

Individual Liability for NLRB Violations Under the appropriate circumstances, liability for unfair labor practices may extend beyond a single employer. It can include alter ego companies and even individual liability for officers or owners of the employer. This extension of liability is intended to ensure that those responsible for legal violations are held responsible and that the injured have a remedy. The key case for finding individual liability for corporate unfair labor practices is White Oak Coal Co., 318 NLRB 732 (1995), enfd., 81 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 1996).

A recent NLRB case provides an example in which three corporations were found to be alter egos of one another for violations of Sec. 8(a)(1), (3), and (5). In addition, principals of the three companies were found personally liable to remedy the violations. SRC Painting, LLC, PBN, LLC, and Liquid Systems, and James Wierzbicki, Karen Wierzbicki, Edmund Wierzbicki, Eric Wierzbicki, Constance Wierzbicki, & Erin Wierzbicki, 346 NLRB Case No.67 (Mar. 31, 2006).

Old Noncompete and Nondisclosure Agreements Traditionally, courts have applied restrictions in enforcing noncompete and nondisclosure agreements because of the agreements’ anti-competitive impact. A recent example comes from a decision by a federal district judge for the Northern District of West. Virginia. The agreement had been signed 27 years earlier and described a job and duties that no longer existed and which the employee in question did not perform. In addition, the agreement was very broad in the time, duties, and geographic scope of the work the employee could not perform. It forbade him from competing with his employer in any similar business for two years after leaving the company. This made the agreement “unreasonable on its face.” The employee had received numerous promotions during his employment, and the court stated that each promotion led to a new at-will position with new terms. The judge concluded that the employer should have provided a new non-compete-nondisclosure agreement that was specific to each job. McGough v. Nalco Co., Case No.05-00074 (N.D.W. Va. Mar.15, 2006).

Damages for Violations of At-Will Employment Contracts At-will employment is often described as a contractual arrangement; however, it has qualities that do not fit well with normal contract law. One problem at-will contracts create that has been the subject of a number of cases recently is that of proving damages. The issue is: When there is an at-will relationship in which a job may be terminated at any time without cause, what damages can there be? In other words, the ephemeral quality of the at-will relationship makes proving future damages speculative. If there are no damages, winning a lawsuit is of little value.

A recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case discussed this issue in the context of a breach of a no-hire agreement between plaintiff (a software consulting company) and defendant (a manufacturer that used the services of a consultant provided by the plaintiff). The no-hire agreement forbade both companies from hiring any employee employed by the other for one year after the employee’s employment had ended, unless the former employer consented in writing. The employee, who had been sent by the plaintiff to do consulting work for the defendant, was not a party to the agreement and was not even aware it existed. Blase Industries Corp. v. Anorad Corp., 442 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2006),

The consultant was unhappy with his work for the plaintiff and decided to quit. Because he was not party to a noncompete agreement and was an at-will employee, he was free to leave at any time and to work for anyone he wanted to. The defendant employer hired the consultant within a year of his leaving the plaintiff. The plaintiff consulting firm then sued for damages due to profits lost for the first year the employee worked after leaving it.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had not proven that it would suffer damages for lost profits “to a reasonable certainty,” as required by Texas law. The court noted: “While some uncertainty as to the amount of damages is permissible, uncertainty as to the fact of damages will defeat recovery.” It noted that plaintiff’s demand for damages assumed the employee would continue working for the plaintiff, but this assumption was not permissible based on his at-will status. Lost profit damages are only intended to put a plaintiff in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed. With an at-will employee, it is impossible to determine what that position would have been with the amount of certainty required by Texas law. In addition, in this case, the facts show the employee would not have continued to work for the plaintiff.

Obligation to Provide Information The NLRB recently affirmed an employer’s obligation to provide a union with information concerning bargaining the current addresses and telephone numbers of unit employees. The NLRB noted that if a union has made this request, the obligation to provide the information is a continuing one. In addition, the fact that the union might have alternative means of obtaining information does not waive the employer's obligation to provide it. Furthermore, the union’s right to unit employee contact information is not eliminated by claims of confidentiality. If an employer claims privacy or confidentiality, it has the burden of proof that these claims outweigh the union’s right to information. In addition, even if a right to confidentiality or privacy
is proved, that does not mean there is no obligation to provide the information. It merely requires finding a way to provide the information that accommodates the union and employee interests. River Oak Center for Children Inc., 345 NLRB No. 113 (Dec. 9, 2005)

Volunteers' Wage & Hour Claim For Back Pay In deciding workplace rights, labels do not matter. In this case, being called a volunteer does not mean that America Online's chat room volunteer “community leaders” did not perform work covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law and, as a result, that they are not entitled to back wages for that work. To decide whether a person is a covered employee, a court must look closely at the facts concerning how the services were performed. The FLSA has a very broad definition of
employment, that is, “to suffer or permit to work.” Hallissey v. America Online Inc., Case No.99-CIV-3785, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2006).

Among the duties the volunteers performed were managing and updating message boards; moderating chat rooms, including preventing inappropriate conduct; updating, deleting, and modifying forum content; running special features; writing reports about sessions and their actions; and providing tutoring services. Volunteers were required to work a minimum number of hours per week. The volunteers believed that to get a paid position, they were required to volunteer for AOL. In fact, the evidence showed that AOL had tended to hire its paid staff from their volunteer staff. In addition, volunteer services were similar to those of paid employees. The court concluded that these facts supported a conclusion that what the volunteers did was work that entitled them to backpay.

Truckers' Entitled to Pay for Nondriving Time An Ohio Federal District Court recently held that truck drivers were
entitled to pay for time spent attending company meetings; taking drug tests; eating meals while working; pre-trip preparation, including included checking the tires, oil, and fluids; starting their engines to circulate air pressure and fluid; and waiting for driving assignments, which could be delayed as much as three hours from the employees’ start time. The employer argued that drivers spent most of their waiting time socializing and drinking coffee and soda. Therefore, this time was not
spent for the employer’s benefit.

The court found that these were activities undertaken for the benefit of their employer and therefore were compensable under the FLSA. The court left the issue of whether RKE's FLSA violation was willful – and thus
whether it owed increased damages – for trial. Twaddle v. RKE Trucking Co., Case No.2:04-cv-557 (S.D. Oh. Mar. 29, 2006).

50-Employee Threshold For FMLA Coverage A recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case gives employers an incentive
to raise the issue that it employees fewer than 50 employees early in Family and Medical Leave Act cases or risk losing this defense. The law in this area has been uncertain, and there were strong arguments that employers could raise this issue at any time, even on appeal. This is an important issue but understanding why requires understanding a technical - but critically important - area of the law. Minard v. ITC Deltacom Communications, Inc., Case No.04-30230 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2006).

The FMLA states that it protects only an employee who works for an employer that has more than 50 employees employed within 75 miles of the plaintiff employee’s worksite. This limit appears in the definition of who is an “eligible employee” under the FMLA. An employee must prove this fact as part of its case. However, if an employer wants to challenge that claim, when must it raise the issue?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that any defense not raised in the defendant’s answer is waived and may not be tried. However, there is an important exception. If the issue is whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction, the issue may be raised at any time, even on appeal, until the case is finally closed. The reason is that if there is no subject matter jurisdiction, the constitution says that the court has no power to hear the case. So the question in this case is whether 50 employee is required for subject matter jurisdiction or is just a part of the elements a plaintiff must prove to win.

Here, the court decided that such a requirement is jurisdictional only if Congress clearly stated that was its intent. However, since the 50-employee requirement appears in the FMLA’s definitions section and not in the jurisdictional section, there is nothing that suggests it was intended to confer subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the issue will be waived if the employer fails to raise it timely.

In this case, the employee had taken approved FMLA leave for major surgery. When she tried to return to work the employer told her that it had discovered it employed fewer than 50 employees and therefore she was not entitled to her job. The court concluded that the employee had relied to her detriment on the employer’s error. Therefore, the employer was equitably estopped to claim it was not covered by the FMLA.

CDC, Surveillance for World Trade Center Disaster Health Effects Among
Survivors of Collapsed and Damaged Buildings, No. SS-2, Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report (Apr. 7, 2006)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5502.pdf

Christopher Abbott, Comment: Stealing the Public Purse: Why Washington's Collective Bargaining Law for State Employees Violates the State Constitution, 81 Wash. L. Rev. 159 (2006)

Charles Abernathy, Legal Realism and the Failure of the "Effects" Test for Discrimination, 94 Geo. L.J. 267 (2006)

Dean Agnos, Comment: Employee Benefits and the Paradox of Same-Sex Marriages and Equal Rights, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 543 (2006)

Michael Bagley, Daniel Kniffen & Katherine Dixon, Workers' Compensation, 57 Mercer L. Rev. 419 (2005)

Sarah Baker, Note: A Choice of Rules in Title VII Retaliation Claims for Negative Employer References, 55 Duke L.J. 153 (2005)

Lisa Baldez, Lee Epstein, & Andrew Martin, Does the U.S. Constitution Need an Equal Rights Amendment? 35 J. Legal Stud. 243 (2006)

Richard Bales, The Employment Due Process Protocol at Ten: Twenty Unresolved Issues, and a Focus on Conflicts of Interest, 21 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 165 (2005)

Richard Bales, Contract Formation Issues in Employment Arbitration, 44 Brandeis L.J. 415 (2006)

Jocelyn Benson, Preparing for 2007: Legal and Legislative Issues Surrounding the Reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 125 (2005)

Vivian Berger, Michael Finkelstein, & Kenneth Cheung, Summary Judgment Benchmarks for Settling Employment Discrimination Lawsuits, 23 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 45 (2005)

John Bonifaz, The Progressive Critique of the Current Socio-Legal Landscape: Corporations and Political Justice, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 249 (2005)

Arturo Bronstein, The Role of the International Labour Office in the Framing of National Labor Law, 26 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J. 339 (2005)

Brown, Ronald C. China's Collective Contract Provisions: Can Collective Negotiatons Embody Collective Bargaining? 16 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 35 -77 (2006)

Jeffrey Brown, Kevin Hassett, & Kent Smetters, Top Ten Myths of Social Security Reform, 13 Elder L.J. 309 (2005)

Briana Bunn, Comment: A New Class of Employees: Family Members Aiding the Disabled, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 505 (2006)

Brian Caufield, Reversion to Conversion? The Board's Interpretation of the Interplay Between Sections 8(f) and 9(a) in the Construction Industry, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 413 (2006)

Walter Champion, Clarett v. Nfl and the Reincarnation of the Nonstatutory Labor Exemption in Professional Sports, 47 S. Tex. L. Rev. 587 (2006)

Erwin Chemerinsky, Qualified Immunity: Section 1983 Litigation in the Public Employment Context, 21 Touro L. Rev. 551 (2005)

John Chiara & Michael Orenstein, Note: Whistler's Nocture in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket: Why the Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision Falls Short of the Mark, 23 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 235 (2005)

Kristen Colletta & Darya Kapulina, Note: Employment Discrimination and the First Amendment, 23 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 189 (2005)

Charles Craver, The Labor Movement Needs a Twenty-First Century Committee for Industrial Organization. 23 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 69 (2005)

Charlie Cray & Lee Drutman, Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 305 (2005)

Debra Davis, Do-it-yourself Retirement: Allowing Employees to Direct the Investment of Their Retirement Savings, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 353 (2006)

Neil Dishman, The Expanding Rights of Transsexuals in the Workplace, 21 Lab. Law. 121 (2005)

William Doyle, Implications of Smith v. City of Jackson on Equal Pay Act Claims and Sex-based Pay Discrimination Claims under Title VII, 21 Lab. Law. 183 (2005)

Shelley Econom, Confronting the Looming Crisis in the Federal Acquisition Workforce. 35 Pub. Cont. L.J. 171 (2006)

Elizabeth Emens, The Sympathetic Discriminator: Mental Illness, Hedonic Costs, and the ADA, 94 Geo. L.J. 399 (2006)

Lia Epperson, True Integration: Advancing Brown's Goal of Educational Equity in the Wake of Grutter, 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 175 (2005)

Samuel Estreicher, Review of the Supreme Court's Labor and Employment Docket, 2005, 21 Lab. Law. 109 (2005)

Charles Ford, Mark Glickman & Charles Jeszeck, Weaknesses in Defined Better Pension Funding Rules: A Look at the Largest Plans, 1995-2002, 44 Brandeis L.J. 351 (2006)

Nicholas Frazier, Note: In the Land Between Two Maps: Perceived Disabilities, Reasonable Accommodations, and Judicial Battles over the ADA, 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1759 (2005)

Ruben Garcia, Labor's Fragile Freedom of Association Post-9/11, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 283 (2006)

Patrick Garry, A Half-century since Brown: The Legal Academy's Views of Racism, 42 Idaho L. Rev. 209 (2005)

Sarah Geiger, Comment: The Ailing Labor Rights of Medical Residents: Curable Ill or a Lost Cause? 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 523 (2006)

Dana Gold, Linking Corporate Law with Progressive Social Movements, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 225 (2005)

William Gould, Fundamental Rights at Work and the Law of Nations: An American Lawyer's Perspective, 23 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 1 (2005)

Michael Green, Ethical Incentives for Employers in Adopting Legal Service Plans to Handle Employment Disputes, 44 Brandeis L.J. 395 (2006)

Daniel Greenwood, Introduction to the Metaphors of Corporate Law, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 273 (2005)

William Greider, Reinventing the Corporation, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 363 (2005)

Melvin Haas, William Clifton & Jonathan Martin, Labor and Employment, 57 Mercer L. Rev. 251 (2005)

Eryn Hadley, Note: Did the Sky Really Fall? Ten Years after California's Proposition 209, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 103 (2005)

James Hardman, OOIDA Litigation and the Arbitration of Motor Carrier Owner-Operator Disputes, 32 Transp. L.J. 175 (2005)

Cheryl Harris, The Progressive Critique of the Current Socio-legal Landscape: Corporations and Racial Justice, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 261 (2005)

Laura Henderson, Comment: Equal Benefits, Unequal Burdens: How the Movement for Gay Rights in the Workplace Is Affecting Religious Employers, 55 Cath. U. L. Rev. 227 (2005)

Raymond Hogler, The Historical Misconception of Right to Work Laws in the United States: Senator Robert Wagner, Legal Policy, and the Decline of American Unions. 23 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 101 (2005)

Maria Hylton, Insecure Retirement Income, Wrongful Plan Administration and Other Employee Benefits Woes – Evaluating ERISA at Age Thirty, Reviewing James Wooten, The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 – A Political History, 53 Buff. L. Rev. 1193 (2005)

Laura Johnson, Note: Whether to Accommodate Religious Expression That Conflicts with Employer Anti-Discrimination and Diversity Policies Designed to Safeguard Homosexual Rights: A Multi-Factor Approach for the Courts, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 295 (2005)

Catherine Jones, Note: Say What? How the Patient Self-determination Act Leaves the Elderly with Limited English Proficiency out in the Cold. 13 Elder L.J. 489 (2005)

Dan Kahan & Donald Braman, Cultural Cognition and Public Policy, 24 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 149 (2006)

Martin Katz, The Fundamental Incoherence of Title VII: Making Sense of Causation in Disparate Treatment Law, 94 Geo. L.J. 489 (2006)

Andrea Kirshenbaum, "Because of ... Sex": Rethinking the Protections Afforded under Title VII in the Post-Oncale World, 69 Alb. L. Rev. 139 (2005)

Daniel Kohrman & Mark Hayes, Employers Who Cry 'Rif' and the Courts That Believe Them, 23 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 153 (2005)

Minna Kotkin, Invisible Settlements, Invisible Discrimination, 84 N.C. L. Rev. 927 (2006)

Nidhi Kumar, Note: Reinforcing Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment Principles in the Twenty-First Century: How to Punish Today's Masters and Compensate Their Immigrant Slaves. 58 Rutgers L. Rev. 303 (2005)

Lefcoe, George. The Regulation of Superstores: The Legality of Zoning Ordinances Emerging from the Skirmishes Between Wal-mart and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. 58 Ark. L. Rev. 833 -882 (2006)

Rachel Levy, Comment: Judicial Interpretation of Employee Handbooks: The Creation of a Common Law Information-Eliciting Penalty Default Rule, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 695 (2005)

Ernest Lidge, Law Firm Employment Discrimination in Case Assignments at the Client's Insistence: A Bona Fide Occupational Qualification? 38 Conn. L. Rev. 159 (2005)

Thomas Lowder, Note: Worker's Compensation in Exchange for Civil Immunity: Is this Historical Compromise Being Undermined by the Kentucky Court's Interpretation of a "Contractor"? 44 Brandeis L.J. 529 (2006)

Manfred Lowisch, Job Safeguarding as an Object of the Rights of Information, Consultation, and Co-Determination in European and German Law, 26 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J. 371 (2005)

Ron McCallum, Plunder Downunder: Transplanting the Anglo-American Labor Law Model to Australia, 26 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J. 381 (2005)

Robert McCormick & Amy McCormick, The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee, 81 Wash. L. Rev. 71 (2006)

Richard McCracken, San Manuel Bingo and Casino: Centrally Located in the Broad Perspective of Indian Law, 21 Lab. Law. 157 (2005)

Katherine Macfarlane, Comment: Another Door Shut - A Federal Interpretation Excluding Breastfeeding from the Scope of a State's Sex Discrimination Protection, 38 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 2319 (2005)

Kathleen McKee, Modern-day Slavery: Framing Effective Solutions for an
Age-old Problem, 55 Cath. U. L. Rev. 141 (2005)

Amber McKinney, Note: The ACLU and the Propriety of Dispute Resolution in Civil Rights Controversies, 6 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 109 (2006)

Margaret Mahoney, A Movement Overlooked, Reviewing Ian F. Haney Lopez, Racism on Trial: The Chicano Fight for Justice, 32 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 857 (2006)

Elizabeth Malloy, Physician Restrictive Covenants: The Neglect of Incumbent Patient Interests, 41 Wake Forest L. Rev. 189 (2006)

Jeffrey Mandell, Comment: The Procedural Posture of Minimum Employee Thresholds in Federal Antidiscrimination Statutes, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1047 (2005)

Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Peace and Justice: Notes on the Evolution and Purposes of Legal Processes, 94 Geo. L.J. 553 (2006)

Heather Murr, The Continuing Expansive Pressure to Hold Employers Strictly Liable for Supervisory Sexual Extortion: An Alternative Approach Based on Reasonableness, 39 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 529 (2006)

Michael Neary, Note: Reversing a Trend: An As-Applied Approach Weakens the Boerne Congruence and Proportionality Test, 64 Md. L. Rev. 910 (2005)

Note: A Law and Economics Look at Contracts Against Public Policy, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1445 (2006)

Barak Orbach, Unwelcome Benefits: Why Welfare Beneficiaries Reject Government Aid, 24 Law & Ineq. 107 (2006)

Rebecca O'Reilly, ERISA Ready for a New Generation of Health Care Reform? Preemption, Innovations, and Expanding Access to Health Care Coverage, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 387 (2006)

Marisa Pagnattaro, Leveling the Playing Field: Labor Provisions in CAFTA, 29 Fordham Int'l L.J. 386 (2006)

Matthew Palmer, Note: Where Have You Gone, Law and Economics Judges? Economic Analysis Advice to Courts Considering the Enforceability of Covenants Not to Compete Signed after At-Will Employment Has Commenced, 66 Ohio St. L.J. 1105 (2005)

Brian Perez-Daple, Comment: Legal Reimbursement Claims by ERISA Plan William Pilchak, Pounding Square Pegs into Round Holes: Non-Compete Agreements for Temporary Employees Stand Existing Law on its Head, 21 Lab. Law. 199 (2005)

Jim Pope, Worker Lawmaking, Sit-down Strikes, and the Shaping of American Industrial Relations, 1935-1958, 24 Law & Hist. Rev. 45 (2006)

Meredith. Render, Misogyny, Androgyny, and Sexual Harassment: Sex Discrimination in a Gender-Deconstructed World, 29 Harv. J.l. & Gender 99 (2006)

David Roby, Comment: Words That Are Beyond Opprobrious: Racial Epithets and the Severity Element in Hostile Work Environment Claims, 8 How. Scroll 37 (2005)

David Recht, Note: Neither Mutual Aid Nor Protection: How Current National Labor Relations Board Practice Denies to Temporary Workers Their Rights to Organize, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 565 (2006)

Elizabeth Roseman, Comment: A Phoenix from the Ashes? Heightened Pleading Requirements in Disparate Impact Cases, 36 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1043 (2006)

Gerald Rosenberg, Tilting at Windmills: Brown II and the Hopeless Quest to Resolve Deep-Seated Social Conflict Through Litigation, 24 Law & Ineq. 31 (2006)

Lawrence Rosenthal, Reasonable Accommodations for Individuals Regarded as Having Disabilities under the American with Disabilities Act? Why "No" Should Not Be the Answer, 36 Seton Hall L. Rev. 895 (2006)

Samuel Samaro, The Case for Fiduciary Duty as a Restraint on Employer Opportunism under Sales Commission Agreements, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 441 (2006)

Michael Scaperlanda, Human Trafficking in the Heartland: Greed, Visa Fraud and the Saga of 53 Indian Nationals "Enslaved" by a Tulsa Company, 2 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev. 219 (2005)

Lorraine Schmall & Nathan Ihnes, Failure of Equity: Discriminatory Plant Closing as an Irremediable Injury under ERISA, 55 Cath. U. L. Rev. 81 (2005)

Kevin Scott, Understanding Judicial Hierarchy: Reversals and the Behavior of Intermediate Appellate Judges, 40 Law & Soc'y Rev. 163 (2006)

Seth Seabury, Robert Reville & Frank Neuhauser, Physician Shopping in Workers' Compensation: Evidence from California, 3 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 47 (2006)

Michael Selmi, Was the Disparate Impact Theory a Mistake? 53 UCLA L. Rev. 701 (2006)

Maya Sen, Comment: Defining the Boundaries of "Personal Injury", 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1251 (2006)

Catherine Sharkey, Dissecting Damages: An Empirical Exploration of Sexual Harassment Awards, 3 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 1 (2006)

Joshua Shiffrin, Note: A Practical Jurisprudence of Values: Re-writing Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 41 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 177 (2006)

Jodi Short, Creating Peer Sexual Harassment: Mobilizing Schools to Throw the Book at Themselves, 28 Law & Pol'y 31 (2006)

Allison Slagle, Comment: Regulation or Simply Encouragement? 33 Cap. U. L. Rev. 869 (2005)

Sandra Sperino, Disparate Impact or Negative Impact?: The Future of Non-Intentional Discrimination Claims Brought by the Elderly, 13 Elder L.J. 339 (2005)

Jennifer Sprague, Comment: How Secure Are Your Lifetime Benefits? 30 S. Ill. U. L.J. 195 (2005)

Susan Stabile, A Catholic Vision of the Corporation, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 181 (2005)

Nancy Staudt, Judging Statutes: Interpretive Regimes, 38 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1909 (2005)

Gila Stopler, Gender Construction and the Limits of Liberal Equality, 15 Tex. J. Women & L. 43 (2005)

Julie Su, The Progressive Critique of the Current Socio-legal Landscape: Corporations and Economic Justice, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 237 (2005)

Symposium: Linking Corporate Law with Progressive Social Movements, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 225 (2005)

Symposium: Catholic Social Teaching and the Corporation, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 175 (2005)

Symposium on International Migration: Examining the Legal Implications in a Global Society, 2 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev. 169 (2005)

Symposium: Canada and U.S. Approaches - Outsourcing, Offshoring, Nearshoring. Legal Aspects, Possible Conflicts, Economic Impact and Job Effects, 31 Can.-U.S. L.J. 335 (2005)

Kellye Testy, Corporate Prophet: An Introduction to Susan Stabile's A Catholic Vision of the Corporation, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 175 (2005)

Joseph Tofilon, Note: Masters of Discrimination: Augusta National Golf Club, Freedom of Association, and Gender Equality in Golf, 9 J. Gender Race & Just. 189 (2005)

Kevin Tuininga, Comment: The Supreme Court of Nebraska Distorted Provisions of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act and Misapplied the Parking Lot Rule, 39 Creighton L. Rev. 181 (2005)

Rita Verga, An Advocate's Toolkit: Using Criminal "Theft of Service" Laws to Enforce Workers' Right to Be Pai,. 8 N.Y. City L. Rev. 283 (2005)

Robert Vischer, Legal Advice as Moral Perspective, 19 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 225 (2006)

Jason Walker, Comment: Wyoming's Statutory Exemption on Wage Garnishment: Should it Include Deposited Wages? 6 Wyo. L. Rev. 53 (2006)

Michael Waterstone, The Untold Story of the Rest of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 1807 (2005)

Kelli Webb, Note: Learning How to Stand on its Own: Will the Supreme Court's Attempt to Distinguish the ADA from Title VII Save Employers from Increased Litigation? 66 Ohio St. L.J. 1375 (2005)

Timothy Webster, Note: Sisyphus in a Coal Mine: Responses to Slave Labor in Japan and the United States, 91 Cornell L. Rev. 733 (2006)

Daniel Westman, The Significance of the Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision, 21 Lab. Law. 141 (2005)

Linda Wharton, State Equal Rights Amendments Revisited: Evaluating Their Effectiveness in Advancing Protection Against Sex Discrimination, 36 Rutgers L.J. 1201 (2005)

Jason Wiener, A New Globalization: Mediating the Role of Mediation in Enforcing International Fair Labor Standards, 23 Wis. Int'l L.J. 205 (2005)

Karen Winter, Comment: Breathing Life into Croson's Passive Participant Model, 27 U. Hawai`i L. Rev. 469 (2005)

Arnold Zack, Conciliation of Labor Court Disputes, 26 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J. 401 (2005)

Future Newsletters

To include your news related to legal issues and developments affecting labor and employment, contact Ellen Dannin by email or by postmail at:
Wayne State University Law School,
471 W. Palmer Street, Detroit, MI 48202

Office: (313) 577-3941

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

LERA HOME | NEWSLETTERS INDEX

Labor and the Law:

News and Current Events from the LERA Section on
Labor and Employment Law (LEL) © 2006

May 2006

Future Newsletters

Labor and the Law:

News and Current Events from the LERA Section on Labor and Employment Law (LEL) © 2006

May 2006

Future Newsletters

News and Current Events from the LERA Section on
Labor and Employment Law (LEL) © 2006