Labor Relations Commons^™

Antitrust Changeup: How A Single Antitrust Reform Could Be A Home Run For Minor League Baseball Players, Jeremy Ulm

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to protect competition in the marketplace. Federal antitrust law has developed to prevent businesses from exerting unfair power on their employees and customers. Specifically, the Sherman Act prevents competitors from reaching unreasonable agreements amongst themselves and from monopolizing markets. However, not all industries have these protections.

Historically, federal antitrust law has not governed the “Business of Baseball.” The Supreme Court had the opportunity to apply antitrust law to baseball in Federal Baseball Club, Incorporated v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; however, the Court held that the Business of Baseball was not …

Made In The Usa: Technological Corporatism, Infrastructure Regulation, And Dupont 1902-1917, Roman Y. Shemakov

Swarthmore Undergraduate History Journal

The turn of the twentieth century radically renewed industrial organization across the United States. Early American corporations -- centralized manufacturing hubs with journeymen and apprentices laboring under one roof -- were seldom prepared for the transformations that scientific management and structural reorganization would bring to social relations. At the helm of World War 1, DuPont became the epitome of broader national restructuring. Through a close relationship with American military industries and legislatures, the DuPont brothers came to represent Business as an inseparable component of the State. While labor historiography has primarily focused on organizers’ relationship with regulators, important segments of …

Salary History And The Equal Pay Act: An Argument For The Adoption Of “Reckless Discrimination” As A Theory Of Liability, Kate Vandenberg

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

The Equal Pay Act (EPA) purports to prohibit employers from paying female employees less than male employees with similar qualifications; however, the affirmative defenses provided in the EPA are loopholes that perpetuate the gender pay gap. In particular, the fourth affirmative defense allows for wage differentials based on a “factor other than sex.” Many federal circuits have read this defense broadly to include wage differentials based on salary history. That is, an employer can pay a female employee less than her male counterparts because she was paid less by her previous employer. While salary history was once viewed as an …