Law Commons^™

The Public’S Companies, Andrew K. Jennings

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

This Essay uses a series of survey studies to consider how public understandings of public and private companies map into urgent debates over the role of the corporation in American society. Does a social-media company, for example, owe it to its users to follow the free-speech principles embodied in the First Amendment? May corporate managers pursue environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) policies that could reduce short-term or long-term profits? How should companies respond to political pushback against their approaches to free expression or ESG?

The studies’ results are consistent with understandings that both public and private companies have greater public …

The Coddling Of The American Worker's Mind: The Anti-Free Speech Nature Of Popular Labor Law Reforms, Daniel V. Johns

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

As the nation enters an era in which a new presidential administration will likely push such labor law reforms, it is worth considering whether transparently anti-free speech reform measures make sense for the future of labor policy and law. This Article argues that they do not. Because employee free choice is furthered, not diminished, by hearing both sides of an issue, American workers should have the opportunity to hear and evaluate employer speech in the course of union campaigns. Only then can employees make an informed decision about their workplace future. In the end, freedom of speech furthers employee freedom …

A “License To Kale”—Free Speech Challenges To Occupational Licensing Of Nutrition And Dietetics, Taylor J. Newman, Angela E. Surrett

St. Mary's Law Journal

State licensing of medical professions has occurred for over a century. Recently, these licensure statutes have been subject to First Amendment challenges, alleging occupational licensure impermissibly restricts freedom of speech. This Comment addresses these free speech challenges, arguing occupational licensure statutes, at least for medical professions, only incidentally impacts free speech—if at all—by permissibly regulating medical professional conduct necessarily requiring speech. Within, the authors ultimately describe, demonstrate, and recommend a legal framework, the other factor/personal nexus approach. This approach helps determine the point at which speech becomes regulable professional conduct subject to licensing, utilizing the nutrition and dietetics profession, and …

A More Perfect Pickering Test: Janus V. Afscme Council 31 And The Problem Of Public Employee Speech, Alexandra J. Gilewicz

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In June 2018, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited—and, for the American labor movement, long-feared—decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. The decision is expected to have a major impact on public sector employee union membership, but could have further impact on public employees’ speech rights in the workplace. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito’s broad interpretation of whether work-related speech constitutes a “matter of public concern” may have opened the floodgates to substantially more litigation by employees asserting that their employers have violated their First Amendment rights. Claims that would have previously been unequivocally foreclosed may now …

Who Tells Your Story: The Legality Of And Shift In Racial Preferences Within Casting Practices, Nicole Ligon

Faculty Scholarship

Expressing racial preferences in casting calls and hiring practices is nothing new. Producers of television shows, movies, and Broadway musicals have regularly and explicitly sought to hire actors and actresses with certain physical characteristics, including race, in casting their productions. And, given that the industry seemingly accepted this standard when it favored white talent, the public heard little about it. To the extent controversy arose, courts quelled concerns in a swift and easy fashion, without consideration of the societal harms or impacts that stereotyped or limited portrayals of minorities in entertainment could have on the public’s perception of people of …

An Overview Of The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Checking The Government’S Deception Through Public Employee Speech, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Free Speech And Parity: A Theory Of Public Employee Rights, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

More than four decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized the First Amendment rights of the public workforce. In the ensuing years the Court has embarked upon an ambitious quest to protect expressive liberties while facilitating orderly and efficient government. Yet it has never articulated an adequate theoretical framework to guide its jurisprudence. This Article suggests a conceptual reorientation of the modern doctrine. The proposal flows naturally from the Court’s rejection of its former view that one who accepts a government job has no constitutional right to complain about its conditions. As a result of that rejection, the …

An Overview Of The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Whistleblowing And Free Speech: Garcetti's Early Progeny And Shrinking Constitutional Rights Of Public Employees, J. Michael Mcguinness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pro-Whistleblower Reform In The Post-Garcetti Era, Julian W. Kleinbrodt

Michigan Law Review

Whistleblowers who expose government ineptitude, inefficiency, and corruption are valuable assets to a well-functioning democracy. Until recently, the Connick–Pickering test governed public employee speech law; it gave First Amendment protection to government employees who spoke on matters of public concern—-such as whistleblowers-—so long as the government’s administrative concerns did not outweigh the employees’ free speech interests. The Supreme Court significantly curtailed the protection of such speech in its recent case, Garcetti v. Ceballos. This case created a categorical threshold requirement that afforded no protection to speech made as an employee rather than as a citizen. Garcetti’s problematic rule has forced …

Consider The Source: A Note On Public-Sector Union Expenditure Restrictions Upheld In Davenport V. Washington Education Association, Daniel A. Himebaugh

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

When Public Employees Speak Out On Issues Of Public Concern: The Applicability Of Pickering In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jayne Chen

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Policeman, Citizen, Or Both? A Civilian Analogue Exception To Garcetti V. Ceballos, Caroline A. Flynn

Michigan Law Review

The First Amendment prohibits the government from leveraging its employment relationship with a public employee in order to silence the employee's speech. But the Supreme Court dramatically curtailed this right in Garcetti v. Ceballos by installing a categorical bar: if the public employee spoke "pursuant to her official duties," her First Amendment retaliation claim cannot proceed. Garcetti requires the employee to show that she was speaking entirely "as a citizen" and not at all "as an employee." But this is a false dichotomy - especially because the value of the employee's speech to the public is no less if she …

Tyranny Or Liberty? The Public Sector Union And The First Amendment, Emily A. Jackson-Hall

Emily A Jackson-Hall

What speech is fit for public consumption? What political speech? Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." The First Amendment protects the right to speak by protecting us from laws which would silence us. “Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech...” A law which permits the government to pick and choose among speakers is dangerous. Preserving the right of your political opponents to voice their opinion is as critical as the fight …

Employment Law And Social Equality, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Michigan Law Review

What is the normative justification for individual employment law? For a number of legal scholars, the answer is economic efficiency. Other scholars argue, to the contrary, that employment law protects against (vaguely defined) imbalances of bargaining power and exploitation. Against both of these positions, this Article argues that individual employment law is best understood as advancing a particular conception of equality. That conception, which many legal and political theorists have called social equality, focuses on eliminating hierarchies of social status. This Article argues that individual employment law, like employment discrimination law, is justified as preventing employers from contributing to or …

"Riding With The Cops And Cheering For The Robbers:" Employee Speech, Doctrinal Cubbyholes, And The Duty Of Loyalty, Marvin F. Hill Jr., James A. Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Protection For Union Appeals To Consumers, Michael C. Harper

Faculty Scholarship

This article explains why decisions of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama holding non-picketing secondary appeals to consumers not to be illegal under the National Labor Relations Act were necessary under a 1988 decision of the Supreme Court, Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council. The article also explains why both the Supreme Court decision and the Board’s recent decisions were compelled by the first amendment and could not be based on the language of § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act as interpreted by the Court in other cases. The …

Electronic Privacy And Employee Speech, Pauline T. Kim

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The boundary between work and private life is blurring as a result of changes in the organization of work and advances in technology. Current privacy law is ill-equipped to address these changes and as a result, employees' privacy in their electronic communications is only weakly protected from employer scrutiny. At the same time, the law increasingly protects certain socially valued forms of employee speech. In particular, collective speech, speech that enforces workplace regulations and speech that deters or reports employer wrong-doing are explicitly protected by law from employer reprisals. These two developments—weak protection of employee privacy and increased protection for …

Free Speech And Parity: A Theory Of Public Employee Rights, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

More than four decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized the First Amendment rights of the public workforce. In the ensuing years the Court has embarked upon an ambitious quest to protect expressive liberties while facilitating orderly and efficient government. Yet it has never articulated an adequate theoretical framework to guide its jurisprudence. This Article suggests a conceptual reorientation of the modern doctrine. The proposal flows naturally from the Court’s rejection of its former view that one who accepts a government job has no constitutional right to complain about its conditions. As a result of that rejection, the …

Bloggers Beware: A Cautionary Tale Of Blogging And The Doctrine Of At-Will Employment, Tracie Watson, Elisabeth Piro

Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Speech Of Government Employees, Ann C. Hodges

Law Faculty Publications

For many years, government employment was considered a privilege rather than a right, and, as a result, the government could place restrictions on employee speech that would be unconstitutional if applied to citizens.

Matters Of Public Concern Standard In Free Speech Cases, Ann C. Hodges

Law Faculty Publications

The public concern standard has operated primarily in two categories of free-speech cases: those involving speech by government employees and those involving defamation.

Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment & First Amendment Content-Neutrality: Putting The Supreme Court On The Right Path, Peter Caldwell

Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Robust Public Debate: Realizing Free Speech In Workplace Representation Elections, Kate Andrias

Faculty Scholarship

The First Amendment stands as a guarantor of political freedom and as the “guardian of our democracy.” It seeks to expand the vitality of public discourse in order to enable Americans to become aware of the issues before them and to pursue their ends fully and freely. As the Supreme Court wrote in the canonical case of New York Times Co. v . Sullivan, the First Amendment’s function is to create the “uninhibited, robust and wide-open” public debate necessary for the exercise of self-governance.

The Amendment plays a prominent role in the regulation of workplace representation elections, the process …

The Triumph Of Hate Speech Regulation: Why Gender Wins But Race Loses In America, Jon Gould

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

On March 30, 1995, newspaper headlines declared that hate speech regulations were dead. After six years of litigating over university hate speech codes, Stanford University's rule, one of the most modest and cautiously drafted, had been declared unconstitutional by a California Superior Court. Hate speech regulation is far from over. To the contrary, hate speech rules not only continue to exist, but the courts regularly enforce their provisions. The difference is that these cases are largely restricted to a single category-sexual harassment. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and with the regulatory support of the Equal …

Free Speech And Due Process In The Workplace, Cynthia L. Estlund

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Thomas Hearings: Watching Ourselves, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Politicized Worker Under The Labor-Management Reporting And Disclosure Act, Barry Sautman

Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

New Freedom For Employer Communications, Cynthia Milne

Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal

No abstract provided.