Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
A More Perfect Pickering Test: Janus V. Afscme Council 31 And The Problem Of Public Employee Speech, Alexandra J. Gilewicz
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 …
Pro-Whistleblower Reform In The Post-Garcetti Era, Julian W. Kleinbrodt
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 …
Policeman, Citizen, Or Both? A Civilian Analogue Exception To Garcetti V. Ceballos, Caroline A. Flynn
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 …
Employment Law And Social Equality, Samuel R. Bagenstos
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 …
The Triumph Of Hate Speech Regulation: Why Gender Wins But Race Loses In America, Jon Gould
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 …
Protecting The Free Speech Rights Of Insurgent Teachers' Unions: Evaluating The Constitutionality Of Exclusive Access To School Communications Facilities, Stephen E. Woodbury
Protecting The Free Speech Rights Of Insurgent Teachers' Unions: Evaluating The Constitutionality Of Exclusive Access To School Communications Facilities, Stephen E. Woodbury
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Part I examines the traditional and limited public forum doctrines designed to guarantee speakers a right of access to public places, and finds these theories inadequate in the school union setting. Part II explores a recent addition to the free speech/equal protection analysis: the content neutrality doctrine. This doctrine mandates that when a school board allows one union to express its viewpoints, a duty is created to provide equivalent access to all unions, absent a compelling state interest. Part III reviews several justifications for limiting non-EBA access, and finds most of them without merit and none of them adequate to …
Labor Law--Picketing--Constitutional Law--First Amendment Challenges By Federal Employees To The Broad Labor Picketing Proscription Of Executive Order 11491, Michigan Law Review
Labor Law--Picketing--Constitutional Law--First Amendment Challenges By Federal Employees To The Broad Labor Picketing Proscription Of Executive Order 11491, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note will consider the constitutional validity of section 19(b)(4)'s broad prohibition against federal-employee labor picketing. However, before the first amendment questions are considered, two preliminary issues should be discussed.
Labor Law--Constitutionality Of Affidavit And Filing Provisions Of Taft-Hartley Act, Jerry S. Mccroskey S.Ed.
Labor Law--Constitutionality Of Affidavit And Filing Provisions Of Taft-Hartley Act, Jerry S. Mccroskey S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff union, its president, and two union members sought to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board and its members individually from disqualifying plaintiff union from participation in union representation elections held by the board among the employees of two Great Lakes shipping companies. The exclusion of the plaintiff union was based on its failure to file affidavits and reports under sections 9 (f), 9 (g), and 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which failure by the terms of the act served to disqualify the non-complying union from participation in board procedures. The plaintiff union attacked the requirements as unconstitutional. Held …
Labor Law - Constitutional Law - National Labor Relations Act- Right Of Employer To Disparage Labor Unions And To Advise His Employees Against Joining Them, William C. Wetherbee
Labor Law - Constitutional Law - National Labor Relations Act- Right Of Employer To Disparage Labor Unions And To Advise His Employees Against Joining Them, William C. Wetherbee
Michigan Law Review
In the spring of 1937 the respondent distributed anti-union literature to its employees. Some of the material specifically denied any design on the part of the employer to prevent the employees from joining a union, and none of the literature pretended to be more than the advice and opinions of the employer. Nevertheless, the unions were thoroughly condemned as rackets, controlled by Communists, which deprive the workingman of his economic freedom and force him to pay for the privilege of working. The National Labor Relations Board found that the distribution of this literature interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees …