Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Discrimination (4)
- Employment (4)
- Religion (3)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Minimum Wage Amendment (2)
-
- Minimum wage amendment (2)
- Affirmative action (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Class Action (1)
- Class Certification (1)
- ERISA (1)
- Employment law (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- NLRA (1)
- NRS 608 (1)
- NRS 680 (1)
- Piscataway (1)
- Remedial purpose (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Summary Judgement (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Taxman (1)
- Title VII (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Labor and Employment Law
Religious Accommodations In The Dobbs Era, Ann C. Mcginley
Religious Accommodations In The Dobbs Era, Ann C. Mcginley
Scholarly Works
Given the deep political divide in the U.S. and the emotional response to the abortion issue, workplaces may become hostile environments that harm workers based on their pro- or anti-abortion views or their out-of-work activism. Besides hostile environments, some workers may suffer workplace discipline based on their speech at work or refusals to engage in certain job requirements. Disciplining employees for engaging in workplace speech or refusal to perform parts of their jobs may violate workers’ rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers grant religious accommodations in the workplace if doing so …
Foreword: The Labor Constitution In 2020, Ruben J. Garcia
Foreword: The Labor Constitution In 2020, Ruben J. Garcia
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang
Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a summary judgment is proper when the opposing party did not file a substantive opposition to the motion for summary judgment and (2) a class certification is inappropriate when the plaintiff/appellant did not meet the burden of demonstrating “numerosity, commonality, and typicality,” and the ability to “fairly and adequately” represent the class members when an earlier-filed grievance between the union and taxi company resolved the minimum wage back-pay dispute at issue.
Western Cab Co. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 10, (Mar. 16, 2017), Sydney Campau
Western Cab Co. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 10, (Mar. 16, 2017), Sydney Campau
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An employer challenged the validity of Nevada’s Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA). The Court held that (1) the MWA is not preempted by the NLRA, (2) the MWA is not preempted by ERISA, and (3) the MWA is not unconstitutionally vague. The Court declined to address factual issues related to the employer’s wage calculations.
Mdc Rests. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Oct. 27, 2016), Alysa Grimes
Mdc Rests. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Oct. 27, 2016), Alysa Grimes
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
To “provide” health benefits under the Minimum Wage Amendment, an employer need only offer to employees (rather than enroll them in) a qualifying health benefit plan. Tips are not included in an employee’s gross taxable income for calculating maximum health benefit plan premiums.
Perry V. Terrible Herbst, Inc., Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 27, 2016), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Perry V. Terrible Herbst, Inc., Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 27, 2016), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) of the Nevada Constitution does not have a specific statute of limitations provision. Because the MWA is closely analogous to recovery for back pay under NRS 608.260, the two-year statute of limitations provision in NRS 608.260 applies, and not the catch-all four-year period from NRS 11.220.
Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin As Amica Curiae In Support Of Appellant, Kant V. Lexington Theological Seminary, Leslie C. Griffin
Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin As Amica Curiae In Support Of Appellant, Kant V. Lexington Theological Seminary, Leslie C. Griffin
Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin As Amica Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Cannata V. Catholic Diocese Of Austin, Leslie C. Griffin
Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin As Amica Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Cannata V. Catholic Diocese Of Austin, Leslie C. Griffin
Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School V. E.E.O.C., Leslie C. Griffin
Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School V. E.E.O.C., Leslie C. Griffin
Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Accommodating Respectful Religious Expression In The Workplace, Nantiya Ruan
Accommodating Respectful Religious Expression In The Workplace, Nantiya Ruan
Scholarly Works
This Article makes the case for judicial recognition of respectful religious expression in the workplace as more consistent with the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence and also more true to the legislative intent of the religious accommodation provisions of Title VII. Respectful religious pluralism in the workplace should become the norm through judicial requirements of best practices in the workplace. Such a view should be wholly supported by the majority of the Justices because it is consistent with their expressed views, in the Establishment Clause case law, that religion fosters moral good and that in a pluralistic society religious expression cannot …
Affirmative Action Awash In Confusion: Backward-Looking-Future-Oriented Justifications For Race-Conscious Measures, Ann C. Mcginley
Affirmative Action Awash In Confusion: Backward-Looking-Future-Oriented Justifications For Race-Conscious Measures, Ann C. Mcginley
Scholarly Works
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, decided Taxman v. Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway, in August 1996. Eight judges agreed that he Board of Education of Piscataway Township, New Jersey violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by using race, in accordance with its affirmative action policy, to break a tie between two teachers in the Business Department at Piscataway High School when determining which teacher to lay off. A strong dissent by Chief Judge Sloviter was joined by two other Court of Appeals judges. The majority decision is remarkable in its breadth, …