Limits on teen drivers

The laws may have displaced, more than actually reduced, road fatalities, according to a new analysis: “While the number of fatal crashes among 16- and 17-year-old drivers has fallen, deadly accidents among 18-to-19-year-olds have risen by an almost equal amount. In effect, experts say, the programs that dole out driving privileges in stages, however well-intentioned, have merely shifted the ranks of inexperienced drivers from younger to older teens.” [LA Times]

New Jersey: will $650 recovery support $99,000 fee-shift?

The New Jersey Supreme Court is being asked to review a case against a car dealer in which the plaintiff’s lawyer obtained a $99,000 fee award; the client’s actual recovery was $650, and the underlying disputed charge was $51.50. In a companion case, a complaint over inadequate handicapped parking won a $2,500 payout for the complainant and $74,000 for her lawyer. The cases could determine whether New Jersey retreats from a relatively liberal formula in which courts enhance many fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs above market rates. [New Jersey Law Journal]

Banning discrimination against the unemployed?

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).

Labor and employment law roundup

  • “EEOC showing late summer spike in discrimination suits” [NLJ]
  • In new Lamons Gasket case, NLRB generously protects unions from many secret-ballot decertification elections [Hyman] Some employers rename quickie-elections proposal “ambush elections” [ShopFloor; see also Hannah Bowen, CRC, PDF] “NLRB’s Pro-Big Labor Ruling Trifecta is Bad News for the Economy” [Ivan Osorio, CEI] Did NLRB have legal authority to issue rule requiring employers to post union-rights posters on pain of criminal penalties? [Schaumber/NRO via Ted/PoL]
  • Wage and hour law roundup: Law clerks fail in bid for overtime pay [Above the Law] “U.S. Open Umpires Sue for Overtime” [Fox Rothschild] Lawsuit challenges unpaid Hollywood internships [NYT]
  • Public sector labor reform: Let the lawsuits begin! [Daniel DiSalvo, Public Sector Inc.]
  • “Verizon Settles EEOC Disability Suit Based on No-Fault Attendance Policy” [Workplace Prof]
  • Just can’t win dept.: after white firefighters extract large settlement from city of New Haven over reverse discrimination, Second Circuit rules that black firefighters can sue the city over the same “validated” test [WSJ, Schwartz]
  • Screening job applicants through personality tests: when is it legal? [Hyman]
  • Way to discourage employers from offering sabbaticals: have courts construe them as deferred vacation benefits [Cal Labor] Way to discourage volunteers [Cain, FindLaw]
  • No, rules Judge Preska, the law doesn’t obligate employers to provide work/life balance [Hyman, Greenfield, PoL]
  • Another purportedly disabled firefighter fit enough to run an Ironman event [WITI] “Can you pay me under the table? I would lose my disability” [Coyote]

“It’s sad that we can’t…report on experiences freely”

Reader Helene G. writes: “I recently joined our local mother’s club, and I received this message. It’s sad that we can’t use the mother’s club forum to report on experiences freely, without risk of being sued”

“Our forums are a great help to many in our moms community. However, we have a very specific guideline relating to negative comments about an individual, company or indeed health clubs.

Specifically, if you’ve had a negative experience with a vendor or individual, you need to use this format below. NO MATTER HOW BAD THE EXPERIENCE.

——-
Message Title: Negative Experience at

Message: I had a negative experience with . If you are thinking of hiring/using this vendor, please contact me.
——-

I’m sorry that in some instances we cannot have more relaxed guidelines, but we have to protect our group. Thanks for understanding.”

(& welcome Elie Mystal/Above the Law readers)