Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Userra Oxymoron: Termination As A Valid Reemployment Position, The, Breanna Hance
Userra Oxymoron: Termination As A Valid Reemployment Position, The, Breanna Hance
Missouri Law Review
This Note assesses Milhauser’s impact on reemployment claims under USERRA. Part II begins with an analysis of the facts and holding of the case. Next, Part III synthesizes the background of USERRA, provides an overview of the statute, and introduces the escalator principle. Part IV outlines the court’s rationale in deciding Milhauser. Finally, Part V discusses the impact of Milhauser on USERRA reemployment claims. This Note argues that: (1) the court’s reliance on USERRA regulation § 1002.194 was misplaced because the court’s interpretation presents a conflict between two sections of the statute and creates burden of proof issues; (2) the …
The Right To Remain Silent: Garcetti V. Ceballos And A Public Employee's Refusal To Speak Falsely, Ashley M. Cross
The Right To Remain Silent: Garcetti V. Ceballos And A Public Employee's Refusal To Speak Falsely, Ashley M. Cross
Missouri Law Review
Both Bowie and Jackler, when compared with a wide variety of public employee free speech case law, stand out as cases where a public employee is not seeking protection of his right to speak, but rather, is seeking protection of the right not to speak falsely or protection of the right to refrain from speaking at all. This Summary seeks to review the progression of public employee case law up to Garcetti and then discusses Garcetti's effect on subsequent circuit decisions attempting to apply its standards. Next, a review of the ineffectiveness of current whistleblower protection laws suggests that employees …
Taking In Strays: A Critique Of The Stray Comment Doctrine In Employment Discrimination Law, Kerri Lynn Stone
Taking In Strays: A Critique Of The Stray Comment Doctrine In Employment Discrimination Law, Kerri Lynn Stone
Missouri Law Review
This Article argues that the stray comments "doctrine" does more harm than good and that those courts wishing to grant a defendant summary judgment on a claim should have to do so by looking at the totality of the circumstances, rather than summarily using a single facet of a comment to dismiss it from consideration. It points out that the doctrine and its premises fail to comport with even a basic understanding of social science and how people foment, act upon, and reveal discriminatory bias. Interestingly, another judge-made doctrine built into employment discrimination law - the same actor inference - …
Resurrection Of A Dead Remedy: Bringing Common Law Negligence Back Into Employment Law, Amanda Yoder
Resurrection Of A Dead Remedy: Bringing Common Law Negligence Back Into Employment Law, Amanda Yoder
Missouri Law Review
Prior to the enactment of workers' compensation laws' across the United States and in Missouri, many employees injured on the job were left with no redress. In 1921, less than 3,000 of the nearly 50,000 employees injured in Missouri received compensation.2 During this time, an estimated 25,000 employees died on the job in industrial accidents but less than twenty percent of their families received compensation.3 Those families that were compen- sated still had to bear the cost and delay of litigation.4 In response, legislatures sought to protect employees from the risks of the workplace and transfer the burden of recovery …
Anti-Discrimination Law In Peril, Trina Jones
Anti-Discrimination Law In Peril, Trina Jones
Missouri Law Review
In this short Essay, I explore the tendency of courts to summarily dismiss employment discrimination claims and consider whether the judicial skepticism, if not outright hostility, we are witnessing is limited to statutory actions under Title VII or is instead part of a broader movement against discrimination claims. In Part II, I suggest that between 1973, when McDonnell Douglas was decided, and 2009 societal beliefs about the prevalence of discrimination in the United States changed. In 1973, as the country emerged from the Jim Crow era, the presumption was one of widespread discrimination. Today, in so-called "post-racial" America, an opposite …
Missouri's Section 287.865.5 Proof Of Claim Filing Requirement: Are Injured Employees Getting A Fair Shake, Carrie B. Williamson
Missouri's Section 287.865.5 Proof Of Claim Filing Requirement: Are Injured Employees Getting A Fair Shake, Carrie B. Williamson
Missouri Law Review
This Article argues that Section 287.865.5's bankruptcy proof of claim filing requirement is bad law because it runs counter to the purposes of Missouri's workers' compensation system. It also reveals significant gaps found at the confluence of workers' compensation law and bankruptcy law and exacerbates cracks in the systems. The cracks in turn become traps for the unwary injured worker. Because of these problems, the Section 287.865.5 proof of claim filing requirement should be amended so that it operates more in harmony with federal bankruptcy law. This Article proposes several amendments to the statutory provisions pertaining to the proof of …
Not Taking Care Of Business: State Responds To The Employee Free Choice Act, Preemption, And The Nlra, Mega Maskery Luecke
Not Taking Care Of Business: State Responds To The Employee Free Choice Act, Preemption, And The Nlra, Mega Maskery Luecke
Missouri Law Review
In 2009, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Representative George Miller (D-CA) introduced legislation in their respective chambers that would significantly change how workers form unions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Under the current process, at least thirty percent of a company's employees must first sign cards that accompany a petition requesting union representation, after which the employees or the employer can ask the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a secret ballot election to poll employees on the issue of whether a majority wants to be represented by a union. If passed, the Employee Free Choice Act …
Does It Make A Difference - Granting Public Employees The Right To Collectively Bargain, Amanda Stogsdill
Does It Make A Difference - Granting Public Employees The Right To Collectively Bargain, Amanda Stogsdill
Missouri Law Review
In Independence-National Education Ass'n v. Independence School District, the Missouri Supreme Court granted public employees the right to collectively bargain. This holding breathed new life into an argument more than sixty years old: that the Missouri Constitution grants both public and private sector employees the right to collectively bargain. However, a close reading of this seemingly landmark case shows that Missouri's highest court smothered the numerous possibilities afforded by this holding before they could be tested by both public employers and public employees. This Note will argue that the Missouri Supreme Court's holding was unnecessary and affords no new rights …
Pragmatism Over Politics: Recent Trends In Lower Court Employment Discrimination Jurisprudence, Lee Reeves
Pragmatism Over Politics: Recent Trends In Lower Court Employment Discrimination Jurisprudence, Lee Reeves
Missouri Law Review
This Article has five parts. After considering empirical evidence, Part I concludes that judges' political ideology plays only a limited role in their decisionmaking. Part II identifies the increase in case filings over the last two decades as a likely non-ideological cause of the increased judicial skepticism towards claims of employment discrimination. This Part begins by examining aggregate trends in the district and appellate caseload and then translates caseload into the more meaningful metric of workload. Part II next evaluates various steps courts have taken to handle these workload increases. Finally, Part II concludes with a discussion of why employment …
Unreasonable - Missouri Rejects A Reasonable Person Standard For Determining Co-Employee Liability Under Badami's Something More Test, Richard D. Worth
Unreasonable - Missouri Rejects A Reasonable Person Standard For Determining Co-Employee Liability Under Badami's Something More Test, Richard D. Worth
Missouri Law Review
Missouri's workers' compensation law has changed dramatically since its common law inception. Co-employee liability for injuries caused to fellow employees has shadowed this change. At common law, employers were not liable for injuries to their employees caused by the actions of fellow employees. However, Missouri's adoption of the Workers' Compensation Act in 1926 shifted the burden of liability for work-related injuries from employees to employers and the general public. Although employers now bear the burden of work-related injures to their employees, Missouri has continued to recognize co-employee liability, but only under limited circumstances. For an employee to lose immunity from …
Title Vii And The Protection Of Minority Languages In The American Workplace: The Search For A Justification, James Leonard
Title Vii And The Protection Of Minority Languages In The American Workplace: The Search For A Justification, James Leonard
Missouri Law Review
My purpose in this Article is to examine possible justifications for the EEOC's language rules under Title VII. Part II provides necessary background information, describing the EEOC rule system as well as the threegeneration process of English acquisition in immigrant families. The remainder of the Article is devoted to potential normative explanations for the EEOC rules. Part III asks whether the Guidelines promote equality interests while Parts IV and V question whether they vindicate personal autonomy or multicultural interests, respectively. I conclude that none of these arguments offers a sufficient justification for interfering with managerial judgments.
Current State Of Co-Employee Immunity Under Workers' Compensation Law, The, Michael S. Kruse
Current State Of Co-Employee Immunity Under Workers' Compensation Law, The, Michael S. Kruse
Missouri Law Review
The exclusivity provision of Missouri's Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act") essentially constitutes a statutory mandated quid-pro-quo agreement amongst employees and their employers. Under the terms of the Act, employers incur the burden of no-fault liability for workplace injuries. The Act states that "[e]very employer ... shall be liable, irrespective of negligence, to furnish compensation . . . for personal injury or death of the employee by accident arising out of and in the course of [his] employment." In exchange for employers incurring this burden, the Act statutorily abrogates any common law right of action the employee may hold against the …