Legal Remedies Commons^™

The Ragged Edge Of Rugged Individualism: Wage Theft And The Personalization Of Social Harm, Matthew Fritz-Mauer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Every year, millions of low-wage workers suffer wage theft when their employers refuse to pay them what they have earned. Wage theft is both prevalent and highly impactful. It costs individuals thousands each year in unpaid earnings, siphons tens of billions of dollars from low-income communities, depletes the government of necessary resources, distorts the competitive labor market, and causes significant personal harm to its victims. In recent years, states and cities have passed new laws to attack the problem. These legal changes are important. They are also, broadly speaking, failing the people they are supposed to protect.

This Article fills …

Employment-At-Will Doctrine: Providing A Public Policy Exception To Improve Worker Safety, Daniel T. Schibley

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Occupational safety would be greatly enhanced if employees had a viable option of refusing to work under unsafe conditions without risking their jobs. This Note proposes a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine that would give a cause of action to an employee discharged for refusing to work under unsafe conditions. Part I examines the employment-at-will rule and its recognized exceptions. Part II analyzes the inadequacies of existing statutory remedies for a discharged employee who refused to work under unsafe conditions. Finally, Part III proposes an alternative remedy: providing a common-law exception to the employment-at-will rule that will give …

A Proposal For Apportioning Damages In Fair Representation Suits, Kenneth B. Mcclain

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Apportionment of damages in fair representation suits represents one of the most unsettled issues in labor law today. Although the Supreme Court has attempted to establish a single "governing principle" for apportioning damages, lower courts have read this principle as authorizing two divergent standards for apportionments. Part I of this article traces the evolution from the Court's original standard presented in Vaca v. Sipes through two subsequent applications of that standard: the Czosek v. O'Mara standard, which interpreted Vaca as placing the bulk of damages on the employer, and Justice Stewart's standard taken from his concurrence in Hines v. Anchor …