Labor and Employment Law Commons^™

Notification Of Employee Rights Under The National Labor Relations Act: A Turning Point For The National Labor Relations Board, Amanda L. Ireland

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rif’D Off: The Denial Of Education Opportunities Through Seniority-Based Layoff Policies And The Judiciary’S Role In Reform, Amy Conant

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Narrative Pluralism And Doctrinal Incoherence In Hosanna-Tabor, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Mercer Law Review

The federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination are among the most important statutes ever enacted. They constitute the most significant federal commitment to eradication of the unjustified discrimination in the economic sector that has persisted since Reconstruction. The laws nevertheless did not address one significant issue: whether and how anti-discrimination norms should apply to ministers and other religious leaders employed by churches and other religious congregations.

The laws are not wholly silent, to be sure. They allow religious groups to discriminate in favor of members of their own religion when they hire leaders, thus avoiding (what we might hope are) hypothetical …

The Supreme Court's Interpretation Of The Fair Labor Standards Act's Anti-Retaliation Provision In Kasten V. Saint- Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation: Putting Policy Over Plain Language?, Lawrence D. Rosenthal

Mercer Law Review

Similar to statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), all of which contain anti-retaliation provisions, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which protects employees with respect to wages and hours, also contains such provision. Unfortunately, not all of these provisions are identical, which has led courts to interpret them differently, granting more protection under some provisions and less protection under others. ...

This Article will examine the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision, and it will focus on whether its language covers …

Thoughts On The Latest Battles Over Erisa's Remedies, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

It is extraordinarily unlikely that the drafters of ERISA foresaw the effect the statute would have on federal courts and American economic life. It was originally conceived as a "pension bill of rights" designed to ensure that workers received the fixed monthly pension payment (based on tenure and average salary) that they had been promised. It grew, however, into the most litigated statute in the United States Code; to govern increasingly popular individual retirement savings accounts, e.g., 401(k) accounts;4 to be the central statute regulating employment based health insurance, which covers over one hundred and sixty million people; to be …

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 …

Ohio Sb5 And The Attempt To “Yeshiva” Public University Faculty, Mary Ellen Benedict, Louis M. Benedict

Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy

In 2011, the introduction of Ohio Senate Bill 5 (SB5) attempted to drastically curtail public sector collective bargaining in Ohio. The bill included a proposed amendment designed by the Inter-University Council of Ohio, an organization of the top administrators of the state universities in Ohio, under the guise of applying the United States Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Yeshiva to faculty at Ohio’s public universities. The avowed intent of the proposed language was to classify all faculty as supervisors or managers and thereby make them ineligible to bargain collectively. After mounting opposition and grass roots efforts, SB5 was ultimately …

It's All About The Power, James Castagnera

Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy

No abstract provided.

Trespassory Union Picketing On Private Property: Sears, Roebuck And Co. V. San Diego County District Council Of Carpenters - Bringing State Law To "No-Man's Land"?, Donald S. Jakubowski, Marni E. Byrum

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fringe Benefits, Proposed Section 84, And Tax Policy , Gregory M. Fowler

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

General Knit Revives Hollywood Ceramics; The Nlrb Again Prohibits Campaign Misrepresentations, Dwight Tracy Shaw

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nlrb V. Yeshiva University: Teacher Participants In University Policy Formulation Deemed Managerial Under Nlra, Valerie A. Moore

Pepperdine Law Review

The development of a "status quo" for teacher bargaining unit certification was brought to an abrupt halt by the recent Supreme Court Yeshiva decision. The author, in agreement with the majority opinion, examines the development of this "status quo" and the cases leading up to and including the Supreme Court's determination that the Yeshiva faculty were managerial employees and thus exempt from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act. Also, the author illustrates the Supreme Court's unfavorable reaction to the National Labor Relations Board's cursory and inconsistent administrative decisions and opinions.

Muko And Conex: The Third Circuit Responds To Connell , Robert A. King, Melvin L. Moser

Pepperdine Law Review

The authors discuss the application of federal antitrust laws to organized labor. The article, written for practitioners, defines the elements necessary to obtain a recovery in labor antitrust actions. The authors analyze the standard of review, burden of proof and the elements which the unions must show in order to be exempted from antitrust law. The focal point of the article is the comparison between the Supreme Court's most recent discussion of the labor exemption in Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 100 and the Third Circuit's application of that exemption in Larry V. Muko v. Southwestern …

Bundy V. Jackson: Eliminating The Need To Prove Tangible Economic Job Loss In Sexual Harassment Claims Brought Under Title Vii, Terence J. Bouressa

Pepperdine Law Review

In the case of Bundy v. Jackson, the federal appellate court eliminated the need to prove tangible job loss in claims under Title VII relating to sexual harassment. The holding in Bundy thus promotes the viability of sexual harassment claims under Title VII and deters employers from engaging in subtle sexual harassment as "part of the job." The decision provides a model for the nation to follow in the pursuit of the worthy goal of eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace.

Wengler V. Druggists' Mutual Insurance Company: No More Skirting The Issue Of Sex Discrimination In Workers' Compensation Dependency Statutes, Teresa A. Saggese, Lawson A. Cox Ii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

A New Standard Of Review In Free Exercise Cases: Thomas V. Review Board Of The Indiana Employment & Security Division, Lynn Mccutchen Gardner

Pepperdine Law Review

In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to clarify the appropriate level of review to be applied in cases which examine the first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The Court ruled that the "compelling state interest" test is the proper standard to be used. The Court also accorded first amendment protection to beliefs which are not shared by other members of a religious group and which are instead the unique interpretation of an individual member and not acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others.

Enjoining Politically Motivated Strikes In Federal Courts: The Jacksonville Bulk Terminals Case, Mark A. Ozzello

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court, in Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. International Longshoremen's Association, acknowledged that a work stoppage entirely motivated by political goals constitutes a "labor dispute" within the Norris-La Guardia Act which is prohibited from injunctive relief by a federal court. In so ruling, the Supreme Court found the Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union and Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO exceptions, which allow an injunction to issue pending arbitration in situations where the dispute underlying the work stoppage is arbitrable, to be inapplicable to the no-strike clause in the collective-bargaining agreement scrutinized. …

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company V. Eeoc: Expanding The Scope Of Title Vii , Mark D. Klein

Pepperdine Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. In Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, the United States Supreme Court extended the scope of the Act to include not only female employees, but also female dependents of male employees. The author examines the Supreme Court's analysis of and the legislative intent behind the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and explores the future impact of the decision.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Wyoming: Appomattox Courthouse Revisited , Richard M. Stephens

Pepperdine Law Review

A highly divided Court again addressed the relatively new doctrine in constitutional law: state exemption from federal regulations due to the concept of federalism. Although the Court applied the tests from National League of Cities v. Usury and its progeny, the Court reached a different result which, without expressly overruling that controversial case, severely limited National League of Cities to its facts. The hope of modern states' rights advocates proved to be short lived.

Up Or Out And Into The Supreme Court: A Forecast For Hishon V. King And Spalding , Linda Randlett Kollar

Pepperdine Law Review

The author presents an extensive analysis of Title VII in an effort to forecast the forthcoming Supreme Court decision of Hishon v. King and Spalding. Included are the issues presented to the Court, the legislative history of Title VII, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, and a historical inquiry of the applicable decisions of the Burger Court. Although the outcome of the case has yet to be decided, the author's informed prediction will guide commentaries in the future.