On September 6, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing the standard for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. The Proposed Rule would roll back changes to the joint-employer test established in a 2020 rule and re-ground the analysis in its historic common-law agency principles.
Lessons from Trinity Lutheran: An Entity-Based Approach to Unconstitutional Conditions and Abortion Defunding Laws
Jennifer Davidson, Lessons from Trinity Lutheran: An Entity-Based Approach to Unconstitutional Conditions and Abortion Defunding Laws, NYU REVIEW OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE, Vol. 43, 2019
Justice for All?: The Shortcomings and Potentials of the Capabilities Approach for Protecting Animals
Jennifer Davidson, Justice for All?: The Shortcomings and Potentials of the Capabilities Approach for Protecting Animals, ANIMAL LAW REVIEW, Vol. 24, 2018
FLSA Collective Action Notice Issues
Justin M. Swartz and Juno Turner, Labor & Employment Law, Section of Labor and Employment Law, American Bar Association, Winter 2013, Volume 41, Number 2
How to Get Your Bonus After You've Been Laid Off
Tammy Marzigliano & Piper Hoffman, Forbes Leadership Guest Post, December 2011
The Top Ten Reasons to Hire a Lawyer to Review Your Severance Agreement
Tammy Marzigliano & Piper Hoffman, Forbes, December 2011
Arbitrability Of Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Claims
This article explores the arguments presented by member firms and registered employees, and outlines what arbitration panels have decided. Laurence S. Moy. Pearl Zachlewski, Linda Neilan, and Katherine Blostein. The Neutral Corner, Newsletter of FINRA Neutrals, Volume 1, 2008.
Since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), arbitrators handling employment claims may be faced with a throny question concerning SOX whistleblower claims: Should a SOX claim be litigated in court or arbitrated? Ultimately, the question comes to whether SOX whistleblower claims constitute "employment discrimination" claims, and are thus exempt from arbitration under Rule 13201 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (Code). This article explores the arguments presented by member firms and registered employees and outlines what arbitration panels have decided.
Justin Swartz and Rachel Bien, Section of Labor & Employment Law, American Bar Association, Vol. 35, Number 4, Summer 2007
Few doubt the merits of diversity in the workplace. Indeed, a host of organizational leaders from chief executive officers to top military brass have recently touted the importance of a diverse labor force. As a result, an entire industry has emerged, geared toward eradicating workplace inequality.
Many thoughtful ideas have made their way onto "best practices" lists that identify methods to increase the representation of historically underrepresented groups in corporations and firms.
Despite all of this attention, however, the challenge of actually achieving diversity remains. As Alexandra Kalev, Frank Dobbin, and Erin Kelly wrote in a recent article examining the effectiveness of employers' efforts to promote diversity, "We know a lot about the disease of workplace inequality, but not much about the cure." "Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies," 71 Am. Soc. Rev. 589, 590 (August 2006).
At the 2007 National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law in Charleston, South Carolina, the Section's Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) presented two panels that focused on efforts to increase diversity in private sector workplaces, including law firms. The consensus that emerged from both panels was clear: truly overcoming inequality in the workplace requires more than changing hearts and minds. It demands a structural, top-down approach with incentives for meeting concrete diversity goals.