Posts Tagged ‘workplace’

Employment law roundup

Defining who’s disabled

Lawmakers seem intent on depriving employers of any clear definition: “It is ironic that we have a much clearer means of identifying who is entitled to utilize parking spaces reserved for the disabled, you either have a government or company issued permit or you don’t, than we do making the potentially costly determination of whether an individual is disabled under the ADA or one of the state versions.” [Michael Fox]

Eighth Circuit: Applicant for lawprof position can sue school over bias against conservatives

Update: Adam Liptak covers this case today in the New York Times and generously quotes me:

Walter Olson, a fellow at the Cato Institute, the libertarian group, and the author of “Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America,” said there was nothing unusual about the number of Republicans on Iowa’s law faculty.

“What would count as freakish would be to find two dozen registered Republicans on a big law faculty,” Mr. Olson said. “Law schools are always setting up committees and task forces to promote diversity on their faculty, which can serve to conceal an absence of diversity in how people actually think.”…

Mr. Olson said he had mixed feelings about the Eighth Circuit’s decision, saying it may have identified an instance of a real problem while allowing it to be aired in the wrong forum.

“I have serious misgivings about asking the courts to fix this through lawsuits,” Mr. Olson said. “It threatens to intrude on collegiality, empower some with sharp elbows to sue their way into faculty jobs, invite judges into making subjective calls of their own which may reflect their assumptions and biases, all while costing a lot of money and grief.”

“At the same time,” he added, “there’s a karma factor here. Law faculties at Iowa and elsewhere have been enthusiastic advocates of wider liability for other employers that get sued. They’re not really going to ask for an exemption for themselves, are they?”

(& Althouse, Leef/Phi Beta Cons, Horwitz, Instapundit, State Bar of Michigan, Bainbridge, Elie Mystal/Above the Law, Kent Scheidegger/Crime and Consequences, Andrew Kloster/FIRE and earlier, Federalist Society blog, earlier)

[Original post:]

“A woman who alleges she was denied a job at the University of Iowa College of Law because of her conservative politics can proceed with a discrimination lawsuit against the school’s former dean, a federal appeals court ruled [last month].” [WSJ Law Blog, Ryan Koopmans/On Brief: Iowa Appellate Blog, Risch/PrawfsBlawg, Ilya Somin/Volokh (arguing “that ideological discrimination in faculty hiring by state universities doesn’t violate the Constitution”)] The court found it significant that of approximately fifty professors who vote on faculty hiring matters at the school, per the lawsuit’s allegations, “46 of them are registered as Democrats and only one, hired 20 years ago, is a Republican.” (Who was the one?)

In Schools for Misrule last year, I made the case that prominent law schools suffer from an egregious ideological imbalance, to the point where their own declared mission suffers in a number of ways. Beyond that, I agree that there is a particular logic in asking government-run institutions, such as the University of Iowa, to be open to a plurality of legitimate viewpoints. Even so — as readers who remember an earlier book of mine, The Excuse Factory, will have guessed — I have severe doubts that lawsuits by disappointed job applicants will really do much to improve fairness in the workplace and counteract arbitrariness in hiring decisions. Such lawsuits seem equally likely to provide a legal weapon to contentious applicants whether or not their talents are clearly superior, invite outside arbiters to apply subjective standards of their own, and take a great toll in collegiality, time, expense and emotional wear and tear, all while encouraging defensive employment practices that help no one. Still, this is not the view of law faculties at places like Iowa, which have tended to cheer on the expansion of employer liability year after year with great enthusiasm. So it may be rather hard for them to mount a convincing complaint when they are made to drink from the cup they have prepared for the rest of society.

Employment law roundup

  • Age discrimination law (including my views) discussed [Reihan Salam, NRO] “3d Cir.: Employees Fired for Pornographic Emails Lose Age-Discrimination Case” [Molly DiBianca]
  • Will Obama administration lawsuit derail employer use of career-readiness certificates? [Charlotte Allen, Minding the Campus]
  • A warning for Gov. Cuomo: “The case against pension-financed infrastructure” [Edward Zelinsky, OUP]
  • EEOC is on the warpath and employers had better hope they escape unscathed [Hans Bader, CEI]
  • Since we know unemployment extensions have no incentive effects, this story from the Midwest is purely imaginary [Marietta, Ohio Times, related]
  • Court rejects “announcement of same sex marriage harassed me” hostile environment claim [Volokh] “Jobs with a higher risk of sexual harassment pay workers more” [WaPo] Half of all students harassed? Surprising it’s only half [Katie Roiphe, NYT]
  • Funny-sad “666” workplace suit: “The safety sticker of the beast” [Volokh]
  • “Do you know what an employment lawsuit costs?” [Jon Hyman]

Making jobless applicants a new protected class?

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.]

Labor and employment law roundup

  • Ohio vote looms on Wisconsin-style public labor reform [NRO Corner, Columbus Dispatch, Atlantic Wire, Buckeye Institute “S.B. 5”, Brian Bolduc/NRO]
  • Florida lawmaker proposes leave for some employees with domestically abused pets [Eric Meyer]
  • UK proposal: let employers have frank talks with underperforming workers without fear of liability [Telegraph]
  • “Wisconsin legislation could restrict punitive damages for job bias” [AP]
  • No, your mover can’t enter the building: a Chicago lawyer encounters union power [Howard Foster, Frum Forum] An insider’s game: “Two teachers union lobbyists teach for a day to qualify for hefty pensions” [Chicago Tribune]
  • Alternatively, we might just want to go back to freedom of contract: “An employer’s bill of rights” [Hyman]
  • Michael Fox on “Healthy Workplace Act” proposal creating rights to sue over on-job bullying [Jottings]
  • Feds put employer use of “independent contractors” under microscope [Omega HR] FLSA risks to employer of using unpaid interns [SmartHR]
  • A bit of health care deregulation from Obama [Tyler Cowen] Related on nurse practitioners: [Goodman]

October 11 roundup

  • UK panel declines to ban “I like gin” tea ad [Campaign]
  • Do pics of tree-shaped air fresheners violate trademark rights of product marketer? [PoL]
  • Man’s EU trademark for “Keep Calm and Carry On” raises hackles [Maria Bustillos, The Awl]
  • When was the last time Congress chose to repeal a law restricting employers? Surely more recently than with the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 [Fox, Jottings]
  • NYC: “City’s Top Lawyer Details Payouts of $561 Million in Lawsuits” [NYT]
  • Calif. Gov. Brown vetoes attorney-backed bill widening fee entitlement where claimed damages not recovered [CJAC]
  • Ira Stoll has been assembling a list of cost-free measures to help the economy, #17 is the proposed EPA-curbing Cement Regulatory Relief Act, #13 is “Eliminate requirements for legal ads in print newspapers in connection with business formation.” [Future of Capitalism]

A right to refuse business trips?

A New Britain, Ct. police sergeant has failed to persuade a federal court that his employer violated his rights of “familial association” by requiring him to attend an out-of-state seminar [Daniel Schwartz] In a much-noted recent decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York found that the Bloomberg news organization’s alleged failure to accommodate employees’ wishes for work-life balance did not constitute a form of sex or other discrimination.