Labor and Employment Law Commons^™

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Finding New Constitutional Rights Through The Supreme Court’S Evolving “Government Purpose” Test Under Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

By now we all are familiar with the litany of cases which refused to find elevated scrutiny for so-called “affirmative” or “social” rights such as education, welfare or housing: Lindsey v. Normet, San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, Dandridge v. Williams, DeShaney v. Winnebago County. There didn’t seem to be anything in minimum scrutiny which could protect such facts as education or housing, from government action. However, unobtrusively and over the years, the Supreme Court has clarified and articulated one aspect of minimum scrutiny which holds promise for vindicating facts. You will recall that under minimum scrutiny government’s action is …

Kav Laoved Worker’S Hotline V. Government Of Israel, Edmond E. Levy, Mishael Cheshin, Aharon Barak

Translated Opinions

Facts: The government of Israel adopted a policy of allowing foreign workers to come to work in Israel. The residence permits given to the foreign workers are conditional upon the foreign workers working for a specific employer (‘the restrictive employment arrangement’). Consequently, if the worker leaves his employer, he automatically becomes an illegal alien, and is liable to be arrested and deported. The petitioners attacked this policy, on the grounds that it violates the dignity and liberty of the foreign workers. It also undermines the bargaining power of the foreign workers in the employment market. The respondents replied that the …

Fuck, Christopher M. Fairman

ExpressO

This Article is as simple and provocative as its title suggests: it explores the legal implications of the word fuck. The intersection of the word fuck and the law is examined in four major areas: First Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education. The legal implications from the use of fuck vary greatly with the context. To fully understand the legal power of fuck, the nonlegal sources of its power are tapped. Drawing upon the research of etymologists, linguists, lexicographers, psychoanalysts, and other social scientists, the visceral reaction to fuck can be explained by cultural taboo. Fuck is a taboo …

Taking State Property Rights Out Of Federal Labor Law, Jeffrey M. Hirsch

ExpressO

Currently, the National Labor Relations Board determines whether union organizers have a right to access employer property by looking almost exclusively to an employer’s state law right-to-exclude. If the employer possesses such a right, an attempt to exclude organizers will generally be lawful; if the employer lacks that right, the exclusions will be unlawful. This analysis makes little sense, as an employer’s state property interests are irrelevant to the primary labor issue in these cases—whether the exclusion interferes with employees’ federal labor rights. Employees will tend to view hostile or discriminatory exclusions of organizing activity as coercive, whether or not …

The (Neglected) Importance Of Being Lawrence: The Constitutionalization Of Public Employee Rights To Decisional Non-Interference In Private Affairs, Paul M. Secunda

ExpressO

This paper argues that whatever debates continue to stew regarding the true meaning of Lawrence v. Texas, at the very least, Lawrence represents the recognition of an individual's heightened interest in decisional non-interference in private affairs. This is an important constitutional development since a problem under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions only arises when the government offers a benefit, like government employment, conditioned on the waiver of a preferred constitutional right. Thus, a government employer, post-Lawrence, should be prohibited, under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, from firing a government employee who exercises her rights to decisional non-interference in private affairs. …

The Selective Capacity Of The Likely To Become A Public Charge Clause In The Visa Issuance Process, Camila Morsch

Theses, Dissertations and Capstones

This paper provides an empirical examination of how the Likely to Become a Public Charge Clause (LPCC) is used in the American visa issuance process. This work covers literature on the logic and usage of the LPCC since the late 1800’s to present, suggesting administrative use of the LPCC expands according to different circumstances beyond its intended purposes. The quantitative portion of this work evaluates the use of the LPCC (for both immigrant applicant and nonimmigrant applicant populations) from 1966 to 2002 to ascertain the effect of economic and security conditions on the use of the LPCC. Applied Statistical Logistic …

Keeping The Boss Out Of The Bedroom: California's Constitutional Right Of Privacy As A Limitation On Private Employers' Regulation Of Employees' Off-Duty Intimate Association, Erich Shiners

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Contractual Waivers Of A Right To Jury Trial - Another Opinion, Brian D. Weber

Cleveland State Law Review

It is well-settled that arbitration in the employment context is favored by the courts, and that there is a federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, in general. However, jury waivers outside of arbitration in the employment context are still a relatively novel idea in some jurisdictions, despite the fact that an arbitration agreement itself inherently prevents the employee from having a jury trial. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the Ohio Supreme Court, have yet to determine if jury waivers in employment contracts are binding. This paper will assess contractual jury trial waivers in the employment context as …

Disparate Impact And The Adea: So, Who Is Going To Be In The Comparison Group?, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1475 (2006), Timothy Tommaso

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Bivens Won't Die: The Legacy Of Peoples V. Cca Detention Centers, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

Interpreting recent Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit, in Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, held that a federal prisoner confined in a privately run prison may not bring a Bivens suit against the employees of the private prison for violations of his constitutional rights when alternative state-law causes of action are available. The author first reviews the Supreme Court's evolving Bivens jurisprudence and turns next to an overview of the Tenth Circuit's opinion. Third, the author argues that, despite the Tenth Circuit's new approach, putative constitutional claims brought under state-law theories of recovery will often be re-federalized, producing uniform federal …

Miller V. Department Of Corrections: The Application Of Title Vii To Consensual, Indirect Employer Conduct, Stephen Dacus

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Grutter At Work: A Title Vii Critique Of Constitutional Affirmative Action, Jessica Bulman-Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

This Note argues that Title VII doctrine both illuminates internal contradictions of Grutter v. Bollinger and provides a framework for reading the opinion. Grutter's diversity rationale is a broad endorsement of integration that hinges on the quantitative concept of critical mass, but the opinion's narrow-tailoring discussion instead points to a model of racial difference that champions subjective decisionmaking and threatens to jettison numerical accountability. Title VII doctrine supports a reading of Grutter that privileges a view of diversity as integration and therefore cautions against the opinion's conception of narrow tailoring. Grutter, in turn, can productively inform employment discrimination law. The …

Let's Talk About Sex Baby: Lyle V. Warner Brothers Television Productions And The California Court Of Appeal's Creative Necessity Defense To Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment, Sarah Pahnke Reisert

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Taking The Stand: The Lessons Of The Three Men Who Took The Japanese American Internment To Court, Lorraine K. Bannai

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Superimposing Title Vii's Adverse Action Requirement On First Amendment Retaliation Claims: A Chilling Prospect For Government Employee Speech, Rosalie Berger Levinson

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

When Are Releases Of Claims For Erisa Plan Benefits Effective?, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 773 (2005), Albert Feuer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Work: The Discriminatory Effect Of Veterans' Preferences On Homosexuals, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1083 (2005), Louis J. Virelli Iii

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rules Of Or Substantive Law: Who Controls An Individual's Right To Choose A Lawyer In Today's Corporate Environment, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1265 (2005), Joan Colson

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Hiring Preferences By Alaska Native Corporations After Malabed V. North Slope Borough, James P. Mills

Seattle University Law Review

This article argues that Native corporations can provide employment preferences for Alaska Natives, so long as they are appropriately tailored to provide employment preferences to that corporation's shareholders or those closely related to the shareholders. Moreover, a hiring preference based on shareholder status is not a preference based on race and, as such, does not violate Alaska state law.24 But even if the Alaska Supreme Court found that these hiring preferences did violate the state constitution, given the federal government's unique relationship with Native corporations 25 and Congress's clear intent for Native corporations to favor Alaska Natives in their hiring …

Stepping Through Grutter's Open Doors: What The University Of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases Mean For Race-Conscious Government Decisionmaking, Helen Norton

Publications

In Grutter, a majority of the Court for the first time identified an instrumental justification for race-based government decisionmaking as compelling - specifically, a public law school's interest in attaining a diverse student body. Grutter not only recognized the value of diversity in higher education, but left open the possibility that the Court might find similar justifications compelling as well.

The switch to instrumental justifications for affirmative action appears a strategic response to the Court's narrowing of the availability of remedial rationales. A number of thoughtful commentators, however, have reacted to this trend with concern and even dismay, questioning …

Introduction, David J. Seipp

Faculty Scholarship

Have we come to bury Lochner, or to praise it? Lochner v. New York,' decided 100 years ago, gave its name to an era in which judges struck down popular statutes that regulated hours, wages, and conditions of work, on grounds that such labor regulations violated a constitutional liberty of contract. After 1937, Lochnerism and Lochnerizing were more or less uniformly condemned by judges and law professors alike. Recently, some scholars have tried to resurrect the Lochner approach, presumably as a way to render much of the twentieth-century regulatory state unconstitutional.

Constitutional Law—State Employees Have Private Cause Of Action Against Employers Under Family And Medical Leave Act—Nevada Department Of Human Resources V. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003)., Gabriel H. Teninbaum

ExpressO

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that non-consenting states are not subject to suit in federal court. Congress may, however, abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity by enacting legislation to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority by abrogating sovereign immunity under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows private causes of action against state employers to enforce the FMLA’s family-leave provision. The Court held abrogation was proper under the FMLA and state …

State Employers Are Not Sovereign: By Analogy, Transfer The Market Participant Exception To The Dormant Commerce Clause To States As Employers, Lara Gardner

Chicago-Kent Law Review

States should be treated as market participants and not be given sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment when they are acting as private employers. Through an expansive reading of the Eleventh Amendment, the Supreme Court has restricted the right of state employees to sue under federal statutes intended to protect employees when the state is the employer and claims sovereign immunity. Under the market participant exception to the dormant Commerce Clause, if a state is acting as a market participant, rather than as a market regulator, it is no longer bound by the restraints of the Commerce Clause. The reasons …

The Needle And The Damage Done: How Hoffman Plastics Promotes Sweatshops And Illegal Immigration And What To Do About It , Jennifer S. Berman

ExpressO

This paper examines the intersection of immigration and labor law as developed in federal law, culminating in the recent Supreme Court case, Hoffman Plastics. Arguing that Hoffman was wrongly decided, the paper further demonstrates that stronger penalties are necessary under the NLRA to deter employer wrongdoing, protect workers’ rights, and slow the proliferation of sweatshops.

Family Leave Policies Trump States Rights: Nevada Department Of Human Resources V. Hibbs And Its Impact Of Sovereign Immunity Jurisprudence, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 599 (2004), Jana L. Tibben

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religious Organizations And Mandatory Collective Bargaining Under Federal And State Labor Laws: Freedom From And Freedom For, Kathleen A. Brady

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Employment Law: Congress Giveth And The Supreme Court Taketh Away: Title Vii's Prohibition Of Religious Discrimination In The Workplace, Huma T. Yunus

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.