Overlawyered » discrimination law

Employment law roundup

Walter Olson — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:12:54 +0000

Fueled by liberal foundation grants and federal money, “Restaurant Opportunities Center” launches litigation campaign against chain-eatery leader Darden [Orlando Sentinel] Still to be explained: why the Detroit Chamber of Commerce would be so happy to announce a business-backed non-profit’s funding for ROC.
Major employment plaintiff’s firm Outten & Golden promotes Hearst magazine intern class action [Romenesko, Reason]
“Retaliation Charges Pose Growing Threat to Free Speech” [Hans Bader, CEI]
Debate: “Should state outlaw requirements that job applicants be employed?” [Pia Lopez/Ben Boychuk, Sacramento Bee]
“Is it time to do away with McDonnell Douglas?” [burden-shifting test in job bias cases; Jon Hyman]
Supposed exemption from OSHA for under-10-employee businesses is mostly myth [Eric Conn, EBG]
WSJ is kind enough to pick up my item on Italian labor law professors as a “Notable and Quotable” today;
New York Times fires 23 employees after searching their emails and finding that they had forwarded blonde and ethnic jokes and other common forms of workplace humor [eleven years ago on Overlawyered]

Tags: discrimination law, Ford Foundation, hostile environment, New York Times, OSHA, restaurants, wage and hour suits, workplace

“Battered bank syndrome”

Walter Olson — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:27:58 +0000

Bank of America keeps funding its racial-demagogy tormentors. [Investors Business Daily]

Tags: banks, discrimination law

Labor and employment law roundup

Walter Olson — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:12:05 +0000

NLRB rules employment contracts that specify arbitration for group grievances violate federal labor law even in nonunion workplaces [D. R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda; Ross Runkel, Corporate Counsel]
Richard Epstein on “living wage” legislation [Defining Ideas]
In Greece, law providing early retirement for “hazardous” jobs was extended to some that are not so hazardous, like hairdressing, pastry making and radio announcing [Mark Steyn via Instapundit, IBTimes, Reuters]
“Prosecutor’s double-dippers draw millions from New Jersey pension funds” [Mark Lagerkvist, DC Examiner] Even if convicted on felony charges of misappropriation of public funds, Beverly Hills school superintendent unlikely to forfeit pension [LA Times]
“Against Forced Unionization of Independent Workers” [Ilya Shapiro on Cato amicus brief in Harris v. Quinn]
Whoops: UAW officials appeal extortion sentence, 6th Circuit sends it back as too lenient [AutoBlog via Kaus]
New York appeals court makes it harder to get weak NYC job-bias cases dismissed on summary judgment [Judy Greenwald, Business Insurance] Connecticut’s job-bias commission doesn’t seem to consider any cases frivolous any more [Daniel Schwartz]

Tags: arbitration, Connecticut, discrimination law, labor unions, New York, NYC, prosecution

At “Minding the Campus” on Iowa case

Walter Olson — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:30:14 +0000

I’ve got a new piece up at Minding the Campus, the higher education reform site, with more to say about Teresa Wagner’s lawsuit against the University of Iowa College of Law charging ideological discrimination because of her conservative beliefs. Earlier here.

Tags: discrimination law, Iowa, law schools

Making jobless applicants a new protected class?

Walter Olson — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:16:07 +0000

A plaintiff’s-oriented group crusading for such legislation managed to come up with only a relative handful of employer advertisements exhibiting supposed bias against the unemployed. And on scrutiny not all of those ads turned out in fact to be “exclusionary”:

For example, national recruiter Kelly Services placed the following ad in the St. Louis area: “Currently employed but lacking growth in terms of responsibilities and technical proficiencies? If so, Kelly IT Resources-St. Louis wants to talk to you!” NELP zeroed in on “currently employed,” counted it as discriminatory, and ignored the rest of the posting. Common sense dictates that marketing to the currently employed looking to advance does not signal a rejection of the unemployed.

[Michael Saltsman, Wall Street Journal, earlier here, etc.]

Tags: advertising, discrimination law, workplace

Court: IVF clinic cannot turn away single customers

Walter Olson — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:20:17 +0000

“A single woman who was denied treatment by a west Michigan in vitro fertilization clinic can proceed with a lawsuit claiming unlawful discrimination, the state Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released today. The case against Grand Rapids Fertility and IVF was filed after a doctor there told Allison Moon that his clinic could not provide the service out of concern that Michigan paternity law is so vague that a child conceived by IVF and born to a single mother could successfully sue the clinic for child support.” [Dawson Bell, Detroit Free Press] The appeals court said Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits services of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of marital status among other grounds, extinguishes doctors’ common law right to decide with whom to undertake a physician-patient relationship. [Michigan Health Law Link]

Tags: discrimination law, medical, Michigan

November 4 roundup

Walter Olson — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:29:23 +0000

“Kentucky antidiscrimination law doesn’t bar discrimination based on litigiousness” [Volokh]
“Lawyer sues to stop fireworks show; now wants $756K in fees from taxpayers” [CJAC, San Diego]
Leahy bill reauthorizing VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) includes language codifying OCR assault on campus due process [Bader, Daily Caller, Inside Higher Ed, FIRE, earlier here, here]
“One-Ninth the Freedom Kids Used To Have” [Free-Range Kids] “WARNING: Baby in pram! Anything could happen!” [same]
New Zealand considers criminalizing breaches of fiduciary duty [Prof. Bainbridge]
From libertarian Steve Chapman, a favorable rating for Rahm Emanuel as Chicago mayor [Chicago Tribune]
Did California privacy legislation just regulate bloggers? [Eric Goldman, Paul Alan Levy]

Tags: attorneys' fees, bloggers and the law, California, Chicago, discrimination law, New Zealand, privacy

Supposed hiring bias against unemployed applicants

Walter Olson — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:42:28 +0000

Although the plaintiff’s-oriented National Employment Law Project has been campaigning on the issue, “Michael Saltsman with the Employment Policies Institute says the claims of unemployment discrimination are overblown.” [Fox News; Iain Murray; earlier here, here, and here]

Tags: discrimination law, workplace

EEOC vs. the ministerial exception

Walter Olson — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:29:56 +0000

Argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC pits the quasi-religion of employment discrimination law against organized religion of every other sort. Guess which side the Obama administration comes down on? I explain in a new op-ed at The Daily Caller. More background: Christopher Lund (Wayne State), “In Defense of the Ministerial Exception”, North Carolina Law Review/SSRN. And per Rick Garnett at NRO “Bench Memos,” the Court’s justices in their questioning yesterday did not appear friendly toward the idea of overthrowing the exception (& followup). According to the L.A. Times and other reporting, Justice Kagan described the Justice Department’s position as “amazing.” More: Marcia McCormick, Workplace Prof (linking to transcript of oral argument, PDF)(& welcome Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).

Tags: churches, discrimination law, EEOC, Supreme Court

Banning discrimination against the unemployed?

Walter Olson — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:10:49 +0000

I joined the host on Connecticut’s WTIC Thursday morning to discuss President Obama’s proposed ban on employer discrimination against unemployed job applicants:

For more on this bad proposal, check out Charles Lane, Washington Post (”really bad idea that will probably destroy jobs in a misguided effort to save them”); Richard Epstein/Hoover (”most ghastly” element of jobs plan), Mickey Kaus (”Worst idea in the speech? …a museum-quality case of liberal legalism ignoring the economic cost of the mechanisms of liberal legalism”), Steve Chapman (”may very well have a positive impact on hiring. Just not in America”), Neil Munro, Adler/Volokh, Business Insider, Ted Frank/PoL, NYT “Room for Debate”, Dan Indiviglio/The Atlantic (”While this is a lovely political talking point, it won’t cut unemployment and could even make matters worse for jobless Americans”), Atlantic Wire, Tim Cavanaugh/Reason, Jay Goltz/NYT “You’re the Boss” (”I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”), National Review, Kerry Picket/Washington Times (Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill.: “If it takes lawsuits to get work opportunities, then so be it”), earlier (& welcome Tim Cavanaugh/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).

Tags: discrimination law, on TV and radio, workplace

Overlawyered » discrimination law

Employment law roundup

Related posts

“Battered bank syndrome”

Related posts

Labor and employment law roundup

Related posts

At “Minding the Campus” on Iowa case

Related posts

Making jobless applicants a new protected class?

Related posts

Court: IVF clinic cannot turn away single customers

Related posts

November 4 roundup

Related posts

Supposed hiring bias against unemployed applicants

Related posts

EEOC vs. the ministerial exception

Related posts

Banning discrimination against the unemployed?

Related posts