Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Undocumented Workers Are Entitled To Vote In Union Elections - But Are They "Employees" Under The Law?, Beth Wolf Mora
Undocumented Workers Are Entitled To Vote In Union Elections - But Are They "Employees" Under The Law?, Beth Wolf Mora
Golden Gate University Law Review
This note discusses the facts and procedural history of Kolkka. Part III provides a detailed legal and historical analysis of the applicable statutes, case law, and debates surrounding undocumented workers rights. Part IV describes the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Kolkka. Part V critiques the Ninth Circuit's holding in Kolkka asserting that undocumented workers have the right to vote in union elections. Finally, Part VI concludes that judicial decisions supporting undocumented workers rights as an "employees," outweighs the political opposition to rights for undocumented workers. Therefore, to protect undocumented workers, statutory language should expressly state that they are "employees."
Employment Law - Johnson V. State Of Oregon, Beryl Slavov
Employment Law - Johnson V. State Of Oregon, Beryl Slavov
Golden Gate University Law Review
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to its disabled employees to enable them to perform the essential functions of their position} In Johnson v. State of Oregon, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined the circumstances in which the doctrine of judicial estoppel could bar a claim under the ADA when the litigant has sought or received disability benefits. Because this was an issue of first impression, the court relied upon Federal Guidelines and case law from other circuits to conclude that the pursuit or receipt of disability …
Employment Law - Duffield V. Robertson Stephens & Co., Kate S. Langer
Employment Law - Duffield V. Robertson Stephens & Co., Kate S. Langer
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Company, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibited an employer from requiring, as a condition of employment, that prospective or current employees agree in advance to arbitrate Title VII claims arising out of the employment relationship. Relying on the purposes and legislative history of the 1991 Act, the Ninth Circuit became the only circuit to find that the Act barred these mandatory arbitration agreements.
Labor Law, Richard Slizeski, Alice Guckeen, Tom C. Clark
Labor Law, Richard Slizeski, Alice Guckeen, Tom C. Clark
Golden Gate University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Labor Law, Mitchell H. Miller