Search

As the nation confronts multiple federal and state attacks on employee noncompetition agreements ("NCAs"), one issue has remained relatively obscure: may an employer that terminates a worker for reasons not related to performance nevertheless enforce an NCA? A scattering of cases mostly holds no, and the recent Restatement of Employment Law 's agreement with those decisions is likely to be very influential for the great majority of jurisdictions that have not yet addressed the question but may be forced to in light of massive COVID-related layoffs. This Article supports the Restatement's proposed rule, while exploring the fascinating doctrinal and policy issues implicated in the question. Ultimately, it sees the rule as rooted in concerns about fairness to employees that are typically given short shrift in current doctrine. This is true even for a Restatement that otherwise seems decided to opt for an economic approach that would validate NCAs that are "reasonably tailored" to defined legitimate employer interests. Adoption of a rule denying enforcement in such situations also poses some interesting second-order questions, such as how to determine when a termination is performance-related and probable employer responses to a new dispensation. All are explored in the pages that follow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A worker's status as an "employee" or "independent contractor" determines the amount of protection she will receive under a vast array of workplace laws. However, the definitions of "employee" and "independent contractor" are increasingly misapplied in today's labor market. The resulting worker misclassification is a widely recognized problem that prevents workers from knowing and asserting their rights. Incongruous statutory standards for defining worker status exacerbate worker misclassification. In Ives Camargo's Case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court contended with such incongruities in a decision that determined the correct standard for defining who is an "employee" and "independent contractor" under Massachusetts workers' compensation law. The court's holding affirmed the Commonwealth's current definitional system for worker status in which, paradoxically, "the same worker can be an employee for one purpose but an independent contractor for another."1 This Note will argue that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court missed an opportunity in Camargo to clarify the incongruous standards used to define worker status in Massachusetts. In the wake of Camargo, this Note calls for a uniform definition of "independent contractor" across the Commonwealth's workplace laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 upended public sector labor law by finding a novel First Amendment right of public employees to refuse to pay union fees and declaring unconstitutional scores of laws and thousands of labor contracts. This Article assesses the constraints on public sector labor law post-Janus, examines the variety of legislative responses, and proposes a path forward. Janus makes it difficult to address the collective action problem facing all large groups. Although it is in the interest of every member of a group to engage in collective action to provide common goods, it is also in each individual’s interest to let others incur the costs of doing so. The Janus Court misstated the nature of the collective action problem when it said the problem was free-riding on union-negotiated benefits. The problem is that, without some way to require all who benefit to share the costs, unions will not negotiate effectively for the benefits in the first place, so there will be no common goods to free ride on. Many proposals for ameliorating the collective action problem exacerbated by Janus continue unions’ financial solvency in the shortterm but sacrifice unions’ fundamental nature as membership organizations governed by and for workers. Some adopt a form of members-only representation, thus abandoning the principles of majority and exclusive representation. Others have government employers subsidize the cost of union representation. And yet others treat union fees like health insurance: subject to an annual openenrollment period. But four major public sector unions have condemned many of these approaches, even as legislatures have considered or enacted them. Close analysis of the unintended effects of these approaches to the collective action problem shows why they are problematic. Returning to the economic theory of groups and public goods, the Article assesses legislation that seeks to give public employee unions some of the attributes of small groups, in which a mix of social norms and individual benefits provide the incentives for individuals to incur the costs of providing public goods. The Article concludes by explaining why the options we propose could survive the inevitable post-Janus legal challenges and enable unions to be majoritarian democratic institutions that are accountable to those whom they represent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA)--which prohibits state and local regulation "related to a price, route, or service" of interstate trucking firms--is a statute with enormous legal and economic significance that operates largely in the dark. This Article seeks to bring the FAAAA to light, explain what is at stake in its interpretation, and argue against its application to state and local labor and employment law. Our primary aim is to spotlight--and challenge--the growing use of the FAAAAby the trucking industry as a strategy for misclassifying truck drivers. To do so, we situate industry's mobilization of FAAAA preemption to shield labor practices from state and local regulation within the broader context of industry efforts to denunionize truckingfirms. Buildingona reviewofFAAAAdoctrine, we focus particular attention on the recent case of California Trucking Association v. Su, in which the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim that the FAAAA preempted the California state law test for determining employee status (known as the Borello test). We argue that this case stands for a broader limiting principle: that the FAAAA only applies to state and local regulation that specifically targets trucking companies, and is not intended to--and should not--apply to general labor and employment schemes that cover trucking companies equally alongside other employers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various topics within the issue, including the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on labor and employment lawsuits, bullying in the workplace, and violence in the workplace.

There has been an unproductive artificiality in the current understanding of information technology in employment law which focuses more on procedural hurdles than deliberating upon the substance of the rights in question. This procedural approach has increasingly shown signs of obsolescence as contemporary innovations in information technology contest the more traditional boundaries relied upon in law. This article uses the decision in Barbulescu v Romania as a tool for uncovering the legal considerations regarding the intermingling of information technology, the workplace and employees' private lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the faltering, trajectory of labour law in Great Britain giving example of some court cases. Topics include hope for workers to secure employee rights case Uber v. Yaseen Aslam & Others; the Supreme Court of Great Britain's judgment in Autoclenz Ltd v. Belcher case; and rejection of a judicial review challenge brought-up by trade union of Great Britain against the Central Arbitration Committee's decision.

The article examines the caselaw and arguments that antedated Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the anti-labor policymaking of the U.S. Supreme Court. Topics discussed are involvement of the Court in the politics of labor management relations, interpretation of the First Amendment in the case governing freedom of speech, collective bargaining in the private and public sector, and impact of Janus on private sector litigation.

The article discusses updates on employment and labor law-related decisions issued by U.S. federal and state courts. Topics explored include the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) addressed in Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc., the definition of disability according to the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), and the use of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The article focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union presenting Commission v United Kingdom, a European labour law and Great Britain labour law case concerning the Working Time Directive. Topics include a Regulation 883/2004, background to Commission v United Kingdom and legislative proposals to revise Regulation and ends with conclusions to ensure that a person covered by the Regulation will not fall between when crossing borders.

The article discusses several Missouri-related legal cases involving topics such as employee liability for contract and loyalty breaches, the reversal of a national origin discrimination verdict, and the legitimacy of the prohibition of voir dire questions about prior claims. The State ex rel. City of Kansas City v. Harrell case, which deals with sovereign immunity against defamation, is examined.

2019/1 EELC's review of the year 2018: For the second time, various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year. However, first, we start with some general remarks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Work requirements are the centerpiece of HHS's Trump Administration strategy to undo the ACA expansion for low income working age adults. This article examines the June 29, 2018 trial court opinion in Stewart v. Azar which held that HHS's approval of Kentucky's Section 1115 work demonstration was "arbitrary and capricious." The purpose of Medicaid is to provide health coverage and HHS may not ignore the loss of coverage that will result from a work requirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Each year, tens of thousands of workers, mostly from Mexico and mostly men, enter the United States on temporary visas to labor in its agricultural fields. H-2A workers, as they are known, are the ultimate outsiders: contracted by a single employer for a specified period, they face dangerous labor and housing conditions, without the option of seeking other employment and with no other ties to or rights in the United States. Despite a robust regulatory scheme that mandates terms--including their hourly wage and expenses their employer is required to cover--H-2A workers are frequently exploited; experiencing everything from wage theft to the extraction of unlawful recruitment fees, they risk retaliation by employers and recruiters if they dare to complain about the mistreatment. To compound the problem, the systems in place to redress these wrongs are woefully insufficient: government enforcement is weak, and H-2A workers' ability to take direct action is undercut by factors such as their temporary and isolated presence in the United States and the limitations on their access to legal representation. Despite these constraints, there are examples of H-2A workers who have filed civil lawsuits against their employers. Having done so, they still encounter obstacles to their full participation in the process, due to the lack of familiarity with the U.S. legal system and the likelihood that the litigation will continue past the time they leave the United States. In this article, I explore strategies for minimizing the disconnect between H- 2A workers and the process of civil litigation and consider the ways in which litigation itself can be an empowering process and vehicle for amplifying worker voice. Using the frame of client-centered lawyering and drawing on two recent case studies of community lawyering among low-wage immigrant workers, I discuss the methods that lawyers representing H-2A workers can employ during the various stages of a civil lawsuit to ensure that their clients are not again relegated to an outsider status. In particular, I focus on four "moments" in the life of a case: the decision to file a lawsuit, the drafting of the complaint, discovery, and trial. Moreover, I consider how client voice can be amplified outside of the four corners of a lawsuit by providing strategies for how to do so while settling cases and discussing the downstream, indirect effects of litigation on H-2A worker empowerment. By putting these considerations into practice, I argue that litigation itself can both serve as an empowering experience for H-2A workers and shed light on the abuses within the H-2A program more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article mentions that according to a study links between employee lay judges and the trade unions are week. The study offers detailed information on the labour courts of Germany, France and Great Britain; influence of industrial relations culture on employee and employer representatives in courts; and decisions based on labour law.

This Article seeks to shed light on a little-noticed trend in recent U.S. Supreme Court statutory interpretation cases: The Court's textualist Justices--or at least some subset of them--have proved remarkably willing to abandon stare decisis and to argue in favor of overruling established statutory interpretation precedents. This is especially curious given that statutory precedents are supposed to be sacrosanct; Congress, rather than the Court, is the preferred vehicle for correcting any errors in the judicial construction of a statute and courts are to overrule such constructions only in rare, compelling circumstances. What, then, accounts for the textualist Justices' brazen willingness to overrule statutory precedents in recent years? And how can this practice be reconciled with textualism's core aims of promoting clarity and stability in the law? This Article advances a threefold thesis. First, it argues that the textualist Justices view precedents that create a test for implementing a statute (e.g., the "motivating factor" test for Title VII violations) as different from ordinary text-parsing statutory interpretation (e.g., "labor" means "manual labor"). More specifically, textualist jurists regard what I call "implementation test" precedents as akin to common law decision-making, rather than statutory interpretation--and seem to have created a de facto "implementation test exception" to the heightened stare decisis protection normally afforded statutory precedents. Second, the Article links textualist Justices' proclivity to overrule to an oft-unspoken predicate assumption of textualism--i.e., that there is a singular "correct answer" to every question of statutory interpretation. This assumption may make it especially difficult for textualist jurists to accept the idea that an incorrect statutory interpretation should be left in place simply because it was first in time. Last, the Article notes that some textualist jurists see themselves as "revolutionaries," whose function is to overthrow the old, corrupt jurisprudential order--including outmoded precedents reached through the use of illegitimate, atextual interpretive resources. Ultimately, the Article both supports and critiques textualist Justices' approach to statutory precedents. On the one hand, it argues that a relaxed form of stare decisis for implementation test precedents makes sense for many reasons, as long as special deference is given to implementation tests that Congress has expressly endorsed. At the same time, it rejects textualists' attempts to overrule non-implementation test precedents based on simple disagreement with the original interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author talks about jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Topics discussed include cases discusess by the Federal Circuit such as employment, patent, and non-tortious monetary claims; expansion of jurisdiction of the court by the U.S. Congress; and impact of public policies on courts.

The article focuses on the application of foreign sovereign immunity under labor disputes in the U.S. Topics discussed include enactment of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 for addressing the same; analysis of location of the employment by the courts and legislative bodies for addressing the same; and El-Hadad v. U.A.E. court case addressing the same.

The article reports on the impact of implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act on employment litigation in the U.S. Topics discussed include take of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on employment rights of people with disabilities; enactment of Americans with Disabilities Act for addressing the employment issues in the country; and Calvert v. AmeriCold Logistics court case addressing the same.

This article summarizes a number of recent judicial decisions of interest to energy lawyers. The authors review and comment on the past year's case law in several areas including Aboriginal law, contractual interpretation, corporate governance and shareholder rights, employment and labour law, environmental law, utility regulation, constitutional law, and selected developments in civil procedure. Specific topics addressed include the duty to consult, plans of arrangement, the duty of good faith in contractual relations, environmental claims upon insolvency, and the constitutionality of federal climate change legislation. For each case, some background information is given, followed by a brief explanation of the facts, a summary of the decision, and some commentary on the outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers insight to the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act. Topics discussed include role of U.S. Department of Labor in addressing the issues surrounding the employment; U.S. Supreme Court case United States v.Mead Corp. addressing the same; and role of Fair Labor Standards Act in addressing employment claims such as fair pay.

The article discusses condition of labor law in Europe, focusing on the case Unite the Union v. United Kingdom. Topics include role of Agricultural Wages Board of England and Wales (AWB); provisions of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (ERRA); the case Unite the Union v United Kingdom, wherein the court showed reluctance to engage with sensitive domestic issues; and prominence of European Social Charter (ESC) and International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions.

The article discusses the British Court of Appeal's case Secretary of State for Justice v Windle. The Court of Appeal concluded that mutuality of obligation is a relevant consideration when assessing the subordination limb of the Equality Act 2010 , and mentions pertinence of Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to the Court of Appeal's judgments. It notes that employment under a contract to do work personally does not require mutuality of obligation.

The article focuses on the recent developments made in employment class certification and decertification rules in the U.S. Topics discussed icnlude court cases Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend on the same; laws governing employment discrimination under the National Labor Relations Act; and legal landscape of Dukes.

The article discusess Federal Court of Australia case Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v. Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd. concerning adverse action. In this case employer adversely changed employee's shift due to variable attendance record largely constituted by instances of employee taking permissible leave under relevant industrial instrument, wherein employer's subjective reasons for shift change related to variable attendance record rather than taking of permissible leave.

The article offers insight to various labor and employment decisions taken by the U.S. Supreme Court for the year 2015–2016. Topics discussed include Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n case addressing public sector collective bargaining; Heffernan v. City of Paterson case addressing First Amendment to U.S. Constitution retaliation case concerning an employer's mistaken belief that an employee engaged in political activity; and Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo case on same.

The article discusses the importance of court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green regarding U.S. employment law on age discrimination claims.

El artículo ofrece información legislativa y jurisprudencial sobre trabajo y seguridad social en la Unión Europea (UE), España y Portugal. Incluye el Real Decreto 299/2016 en España sobre la protección de la salud y seguridad de los trabajadores. También se discute es el juicio de la corte de Apelaciones de Lisboa, Portugal, en un caso que si, dentro de una transacción, hubo una transferencia de contrato de trabajo.

The article discusses U.S. court cases relating to commercial and consumer law, as of July 2016. Cases discussed include Nelson v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, related to a secured party; the David John Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, related to criminal law; the State v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez, related to a first-degree controlled substance crime; and Olivares v. Brentwood Industries, related to race discrimination in employment.

The article focuses on several U.S. court cases related to employment law. The cases discussed include U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. on violation of Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit in Flowers v. Troup County on race discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation on retaliation claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The article discusses several legal cases which were adjudicated by courts in New Zealand as of 2016, and it mentions litigation matters involving topics such as hearsay evidence and New Zealand's Employment Relations Act 2000 and Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

The article focuses the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in several cases related to employment and labor law. The case discussed include Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. on employment discrimination, Tibble v. Edison International on retirement benefit and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar involving the standard of proof required for a retaliation claim under the Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The article focuses on a court case Velázquez-Pérez v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp. based on employment law. Topics discussed include First Circuit that holds employer liable for Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment by Plaintiffs coworker; Plaintiff Antonio Velázquez-Pérez at defendant company Developers Diversified; deterioration in relation of Velázquez-Pérez and the firm; and lawsuit based on violation of employment law.

The article focuses on the Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk supreme court case based on employment law. Topics discussed include lawsuit based on twenty-five minute security screening of warehouse employees which is noncompensable; laws of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); and deserved compensation for the twenty-five minutes spent waiting in line.

The article discusses several issues involving the prosecution of employment claims in bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S., and it mentions Chapters 11 and 13 of America's Bankruptcy Code, as well as an automatic stay legal principle and a question about who has legal standing to prosecute an employment claim. A judicial estoppel legal doctrine is examined, along with penalties for debtors for failing to disclose employment claims. Bankruptcy estate settlements are assessed.

The article discusess various labor law court cases. Topics discussed include Boswell v. Panera Bread Co. court case on salary plan; Roone v. Rock-Tenn Converting Co. court case addressing termination of employee on the basis religious discrimination; and Boyd v. ConAgra Foods Inc. court case addressing Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The territorial scope of UK employment law is a complicated and developing legal area. In the absence of express statutory provisions it has been left to case law to set out and develop the necessary parameters. This article reviews the background to this legal area, including the pivotal case of Lawson v Serco from which general legal principles in this area emerged, and looks at recent cases where the outcome was not what might initially have been expected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the facts and background of ECJ's decision in the Alemo-Herron and discusses the teleological interpretation of the Directive on the Transfer of Undertakings and the new purpose that the Court read into this Directive. Topics discussed include the ambivalent fate of minimum harmonisation after Alemo and the Alemo judgment which concerns the interpretation of Directive 2001/23/EC aimed at protecting employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings.

The article looks at the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases related to labor and employment law during the 2013-2014. The cases discussed include Lane v. Franks related to the employee whistleblowing, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. related to the employee benefits and Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action related to employment law with affirmative action.