Law Commons^™

Pro-Choice Plans, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Constitution may no longer protect abortion, but a surprising federal statute does. That statute is called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), and it has long been one of the most powerful preemptive statutes in the entire United States Code. ERISA regulates “employee benefit plans,” which are the vehicle by which approximately 155 million people receive their health insurance. Plans are thus a major private payer for health benefits—and therefore abortions. While many post-Dobbs anti-abortion laws directly bar abortion by making either the receipt or provision of …

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 …

Erisa Preemption Doctrine As Health Policy, Joshua P. Booth, Larry I. Palmer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Role Of Erisa Preemption In Health Reform: Opportunities And Limits, Peter D. Jacobson

O'Neill Institute Papers

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a federal law regulating the administration of private employer-sponsored benefits including health benefits (i.e., health insurance offered by an employer). In general, since the federal government has exercised its authority to preempt state regulation of the administration of private employer-sponsored health plans, states are blocked from enforcing laws interfering with ERISA.

As many states pursue health care reform experiments, ERISA preemption becomes relevant as a potential limit on the scope and type of reforms states are able to enact. The dominant trend in ERISA litigation has been to preempt state legislation and …

Ask, Don’T Tell: Ethical Issues Surrounding Undocumented Workers’ Status In Employment Litigation, Christine N. Cimini

Articles

The presence of an estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, of which an estimated 7.2 million are working, has become a flashpoint in the emerging national debate about immigration. Given these statistics, it is not surprising that many undocumented workers suffer injuries in the workplace that are typically legally cognizable. Even though undocumented workers are entitled to a number of legal remedies related to their employment, seeking legal relief often raises heightened concerns about the disclosure of their status. This article explores lawyers' increasingly complex ethical obligations with regard to a client's immigration status in the context …

Days Without Immigrants: Analysis And Implications Of The Treatment Of Immigration Rallies Under The National Labor Relations Act, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

The massive immigration rallies of early 2006 were prompted by anticipated congressional action classifying all unauthorized workers as felons subject to immediate deportation. While a product of federal immigration policy, the rallies implicate federal labor law because they could be characterized as concerted employee action resulting in a series of work stoppages.

Some employees were discharged for missing work to attend the rallies, so an initial question is whether participation in the rallies is protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act. But even assuming the rallies were attended by unauthorized workers, those workers are undeniably employees within the meaning …

The Employer's Fetal Injury Quandary After Johnson Controls, Susan Grover

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Legacy Of Industrial Pluralism: The Tension Between Individual Employment Rights And The New Deal Collective Bargaining System, Katherine V.W. Stone

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Section 301'S Preemption Of State Law Claims: A Model For Analysis, Rebecca White

Scholarly Works

Congress, in section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, has provided a cause of action for breach of a collective bargaining agreement. This statute has long been interpreted as ousting state law claims for breach of contract when the contract involved is a collective bargaining agreement.

To what extent Congress, in enacting section 301, intended to foreclose other state law claims by the parties to or the individuals covered by a collective bargaining agreement is an issue that has recently gained prominence. The Supreme Court has decided four such cases unanimously in the last four years.

Such contemporary and …

Unions And Urinalysis, Deborah A. Schmedemann

Faculty Scholarship

Many private employers seem to be busy deciding whether and how to test employees for drug use. Presumably most of these decisions are made by management acting alone. However, in unionized workplaces—one out of five private sector employees are represented by unions—federal labor law prescribes a different method. That method features collective bargaining by unions and management to set the rules, the use of a private third-party neutral to resolve disputes which arise under those rules (arbitration), and relatively little involvement by the government (the National Labor Relations Board, legislatures, and the courts). This system that labor law prescribes for …

The Revision Of Employment-At-Will Enters A New Phase, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

The most significant development in the whole field of labor law during the past decade was the growing willingness of the courts to modify the traditional doctrine of employment-at-will. Applying either tort or contract theory, or both, judges in some thirty jurisdictions declared their readiness to blunt the worst rigors of the rule that an employment contract of indefinite duration can be terminated by either party at any time for any reason. These dramatic breakthroughs evoked almost universal acclaim from disinterested commentators, primarily on the grounds of simple justice. Now we may be entering a new phase of consolidation, refinement, …