Law Commons^™

Whose Invention Is It Anyway? Employee Invention-Assignment Agreements And Their Limits, Parker A. Howell

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

Pre-invention assignment provisions have become important and commonplace facets of employment agreements, supplanting common law rules for invention ownership. Yet statutes in seven states—including California, Washington, and Minnesota—restrict invention assignment. These statutes make agreements unenforceable when a worker invents on his or her own time without use of employer resources and the invention does not relate to the employer’s business or the employee’s work. Employers should be ready to argue why a given invention is not excluded from assignment by statute, although judicial decisions suggest many disputed inventions nonetheless belong to the employer. Statutory arguments notwithstanding, employee-inventors may challenge the …

Talking Drugs: The Burden Of Proof In Post-Garcetti Speech Retaliation Claims, Thomas E. Hudson

Washington Law Review

Law Enforcement agencies fire their employees for speaking out in favor of drug legalization, which leads the employees to sue their former employers for violating their First Amendment Free Speech rights. These employee claims fall under the U.S. Supreme Court’s complex speech retaliation test, most recently articulated in Garcetti v. Ceballos. The analysis reveals that circuit courts are inconsistent as to who bears the burden of proving that they prevail under “Pickering balancing,” and how they should construct that burden. This Comment argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent demands that the employer bears the “Pickering balancing” burden, and that …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Sandifer V. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2012 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4304, Eric Schnapper, Aaron B. Maduff, Michael L. Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Robert F. Childs, Jr., Abby Morrow Richardson, David L. Kern

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the period of time during which a covered employee must be paid begins when the worker engages in a principal activity. Donning and doffing safety gear (including protective clothing) required by the employer is a principal activity when it is an integral and indispensable part of the activities for which the worker is employed. Such requirements are common in manufacturing firms. However, under section 203(o) of the Act an employer need not compensate a worker for time spent in “changing clothes” (even if it is a principal activity) if that time is …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Brush V. Sears Holding Corp., 568 U.S. 1143 (2013) (No. 12-268), 2013 U.S. Lexis 925, Eric W. Scharf, Wayne R. Atkins, Eric Schnapper, Brian D. Buckstein

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she opposed discrimination forbidden by Title VII. The lower courts are divided as to how such anti-retaliation provisions apply to management officials, such as personnel or EEO officials, whose duties include assuring compliance with Title VII or implementing an employer’s anti-discrimination policy.

The question presented is: Are management officials: (1) subject to exclusion from protection under section 704(a) if their actions are within the scope of their official duties (the rule in the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits),
(2) protected under …

Facebook Firings And Twitter Terminations: The National Labor Relations Act As A Limit On Retaliatory Discharge, Bryan Russell

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

In every state except Montana, at-will employment is the default rule, leaving employers free to discharge employees for their use of social media. The National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) protection of collective action, however, is emerging as a substantial limitation to at-will terminations. In Hispanics United of Buffalo, the National Labor Relations Board concluded that Facebook posts critical of the non-profit employer were protected as collective action and that the employer’s retaliatory termination of five employees violated Section 8 of the NLRA. To be protected as collective action under the NLRA, an employee’s use of social media must be …

High-Tech Harassment: Employer Liability Under Title Vii For Employee Social Media Misconduct, Jeremy Gelms

Washington Law Review

Workplace harassment has traditionally occurred within the “four walls” of the workplace. In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that employers are liable under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the employee’s work environment. The rise in social media, however, has created a new medium through which harassment occurs. Courts are just beginning to confront the issue of if and when to consider social media harassment as part of the totality of the circumstances of a Title …

Review Of Labor And Employment Law Decisions From The United States Supreme Court's 2010-11 Term, Eric Schnapper

Articles

In the 2010-11 term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided nine significant labor and employment cases. Although some of these cases affected only the construction of a specific statute or constitutional provision, several of them addressed issues likely to affect the interpretation and implementation of a wide range of federal employment laws. Most of these decisions, rather than definitively resolving a question, raise a range of new issues likely to be litigated for years to come. Thus, for practitioners and academics alike, recognizing the new questions that have now been raised is at least as important as understanding what matters the …

Undocumented Workers And Concepts Of Fault: Are Courts Engaged In Legitimate Decisionmaking, Christine N. Cimini

Articles

This Article examines judicial decisionmaking in labor and employment cases involving undocumented workers. Labor and employment laws, designed to protect all workers regardless of immigration status, often conflict with immigration laws designed to deter the employment of undocumented workers. In the absence of clarity as to how these differing policy priorities should interact, courts are left to resolve the conflict. While existing case law appears to lack coherence, this Article identifies a uniform judicial reliance upon “fault-based” factors. This Article offers a structure to understand this developing body of law and evaluates the legitimacy of the fault-based decisionmaking modalities utilized …