Labor and Employment Law Commons^™

Employment Discrimination Claims Remain Valid Despite After-Acquired Evidence Of Employee Wrongdoing, Christine Neylon O'Brien

Pepperdine Law Review

This article explores the legal practice area of employment discrimination and adverse decisions based on after-acquired evidence. A division among the circuits courts arose concerning the impact of after-acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing upon an employer's liability for employment discrimination. When pre-trial discovery unveiled a separate nondiscriminatory reason for termination, numerous circuits allowed such previously unknown information to constitute a legitimate basis for the employment decision, following the model of a mixed-motive discharge. A trend developed however, among other circuits that after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct should not prevent the establishment of employer liability, but that it should be considered …

Participate At Your Peril: The Need For Resolution Of The Conflict Surrounding Employee Participation Programs By The Team Act Of 1997, Michele L. Maryott

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employee Notice Requirements Under The Family And Medical Leave Act: Are They Manageable?, Robert J. Aalberts, Lorne H. Seidman

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admission Possible: Reconsidering The Impact Of Eeoc Reasonable Cause Determinations In The Ninth Circuit, Michael D. Moberly

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Limit On Downsizing: Varity Corp. V. Howe, James B. Shein

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Paramours, Promotions, And Sexual Favoritism: Unfair, But Is There Liability?, Mitchell Poole

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

"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.

Agostini V. Felton: Redefining The Establishment Of Religion Through A Modification Of The Lemon Test, Christian W. Johnston

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Supreme Court Survey - A Review Of Decisions: December 1997-March 1998, Leallen Frost

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Will Motive, Opportunity Or Recklessness No Longer Constitute Scienter For Fraud? A Survey Of Recent Federal District Court Decisions After The Enactment Of The 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act , Lisa A. Herrera

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

No Duty To Rescue: Can Americans Really Leave A Victim Lying In The Street? What Is Left Of The American Rule, And Will It Survive Unabated?, Jennifer L. Groninger

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Thurgood Marshall And The Holy Grail—The Due Process Jurisprudence Of A Consummate Jurist, Richard H. W. Maloy

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Should Prudential Standing Requirements Be Applied In Transferred Impact Sexual Harassment Cases? An Analysis Of Childress V. City Of Richmond, Robert J. Aalberts, Lorne H. Seidman

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shareholder Demands For Higher Corporate Earnings Have Their Price: How Courts Allow Employers To Fire Older Employees For Their Achievements, Kester Spindler

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice As Right Relationship: A Philosophical And Theological Reflection On Affirmative Action, Robert John Araujo

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Wrongful Discharge Law Turns Toward The Plaintiff , Jennifer Vanse

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Burlington Industries, Inc. V. Ellerth: “Whole-Cloth Creation” Or Manifestation Of Congressional Intent?, John Corrington

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compulsory Employment Arbitration And The Eeoc, Richard A. Bales

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vol. 29, No. 4, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt

The Illinois Public Employee Relations Report

An Economic and Empirical Analysis of the Two Views of Public Sector Collective Bargaining in American Public Policy by Kenneth Dau-Schmidt

Recent Developments

Talking Drugs: The Burden Of Proof In Post-Garcetti Speech Retaliation Claims, Thomas E. Hudson

Washington Law Review

Law Enforcement agencies fire their employees for speaking out in favor of drug legalization, which leads the employees to sue their former employers for violating their First Amendment Free Speech rights. These employee claims fall under the U.S. Supreme Court’s complex speech retaliation test, most recently articulated in Garcetti v. Ceballos. The analysis reveals that circuit courts are inconsistent as to who bears the burden of proving that they prevail under “Pickering balancing,” and how they should construct that burden. This Comment argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent demands that the employer bears the “Pickering balancing” burden, and that …

Promises Policies And Principles The Supreme Court And Contractual Obligation In Labor Relations, Daniel P. O'Gorman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Executive Compensation: In Culture Of Greed And Selfishness, Is There Room For Theory Of "Enough", Robert C. Downs

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Shifting The Burden: Genuine Disputes And Employment Discrimination Standards Of Proof, Barrett S. Moore

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Enacted for the purpose of battling workplace discrimination by targeting discrimination against minorities and the disadvantaged, Title VII has become somewhat of an apparition for good-intentioned employers seeking to follow the law. For example, in Ricci v. DeStefano, the city of New Haven, Connecticut refused to hire white firefighters based on a qualification test because to do so would produce the outcome of hiring too few minority firefighters. Despite New Haven's good intentions, the hiring process illegally brought race into the hiring process, thereby showing that America's relationship with civil rights legislation has come full circle.

At the center of …

Subordinate Bias Liability, Theresa M. Beiner

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Often, decisions regarding employment are made with the input of or based on the observations of more than one person. This presents complications for employment discrimination plaintiffs seeking to prove discriminatory animus resulting in an adverse employment decision for the plaintiff. Specifically, many plaintiffs are left to deal with the unresolved issue of whether they have a claim for employment discrimination when a discriminating non-decision making coworker or direct supervisor supplies incorrect or distorted information to their superiors who have the authority to fire them. This is known as the "cat's paw" theory of liability or "subordinate bias liability."

The …

Whose Invention Is It Anyway? Employee Invention-Assignment Agreements And Their Limits, Parker A. Howell

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

Pre-invention assignment provisions have become important and commonplace facets of employment agreements, supplanting common law rules for invention ownership. Yet statutes in seven states—including California, Washington, and Minnesota—restrict invention assignment. These statutes make agreements unenforceable when a worker invents on his or her own time without use of employer resources and the invention does not relate to the employer’s business or the employee’s work. Employers should be ready to argue why a given invention is not excluded from assignment by statute, although judicial decisions suggest many disputed inventions nonetheless belong to the employer. Statutory arguments notwithstanding, employee-inventors may challenge the …

Welcome To The Real 2011 Nba Lockout: Where Owner-Friendly Tax Provisions And Non-Monetized Benefits Color The Lockout Landscape, Lance Taubin

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The 2011 NBA lockout highlighted the financial strategies of team owners, who, despite claiming operational losses, benefited significantly from tax provisions like depreciation and amortization under Section 197 of the IRC, as well as non-monetary benefits that aren't reflected in team financial statements.

Data Analysis Of The Implementation Of The Recovery Act: Workforce Development And Unemployment Insurance Provisions, Randall W. Eberts, Stephen A. Wandner

Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

Mandatory Predispute Consumer Arbitration, Structural Bias, And Incentivizing Procedural Safeguards, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

Within the past several decades, there has been an explosion in the creation, institutionalization and use of “alternative” dispute resolution procedures. Mandatory predispute arbitration has generated the most controversy because it appears beset with structural bias. The recent cases of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood have raised additional concerns as the Supreme Court has announced that corporations can force consumers to arbitrate their private and statutory claims and give up their rights to pursue class relief. This Article begins by arguing that the Supreme Court’s enthusiastic embrace of mandatory predispute arbitration should be understood primarily …

The Benefit Of Adopting Comprehensive Standards Of Monitoring Employee Technology Use In The Workplace, Karin M. Mika

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This article will examine issues as they relate to the privacy of employees’ lives given that nearly everything can be discovered by some form of electronic monitoring. It will posit that most laws as they exist today do little to apprise either the employer or the employee as to what type of electronic monitoring of personal communications is acceptable. It will further propose that most employer policies related to scrutinizing employee electronic communications are vague and unsuitable. The article will conclude that, given the leeway employers tend to be given (often justifiably so) in monitoring employees there is little chance …

Summary Of Sierra Nevada Administrators V. Negriev, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 45, Drew Wheaton

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review in a workers’ compensation action.