Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Thursday, February 23, 2017

South Texas Law Review: Ethics in Energy and Environmental Law

South Texas Law Review is hosting its 23rd Annual Symposium tomorrow, February 24, at the school's downtown campus.  Information about this symposium is here.

Craig Estlinbaum

February 23, 2017 in Conferences, CLE, Ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Supremes Issue Major IDEA Case Concerning Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The IDEA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before bringing a due process complaint for the denial of a Free and Appropriate Education. But, what about a discrimination claim under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act for the failure to accommodate the use of service dog in school? One may think the answer is obvious; that there is no duty to exhaust in such circumstances, but the statute is written in vague and conclusionary language which resulted in the Feb. 22, 2016 Supreme Court decision in Frey v. Napoleon Community Schools, ___U.S.____(Feb. 22, 2017),  Download Fry v. Napoleon

While I will not bore you with the statutory language here, the Supreme Court basically adopted this common sense approach. The IDEA's exhaustion requirement hinges on whether the lawsuit seeks relief for a denial of a Free and Appropriate Education. If a lawsuit charges such a denial, exhaustion is not excused by seeking relief under a different federal statute. Stated another way, if a student wants to charge a denial of a Free and Appropriate Education as well as a discrimination claim, he or she must bring two separate complaints. 

The Court also holds that a plaintiff cannot avoid the IDEA's exhaustion requirement by not pleading the denial of  Free and Appropriate Education because courts should examine the substance of the complaint rather than the form used. As the Court explains,  "[w]hat matters is the crux-or, in legal-speak, the gravamen-of the plaintiff's complaint..."

As many of you may know, there is another important IDEA case pending before the Supreme Court, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, No. 15-827. At issue in that case is what constitutes a Free and Appropriate Education under Rowley. This decision gave us a clue to the answer by explaining that Rowley requires that students be given "meaningful access to education based upon her individual needs." Slip Op. at 11.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 

February 22, 2017 in Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Missouri Becomes 28th Right To Work State

 Governor Eric Greitens of Missouri, on Feb. 6, 2017,  signed a Bill into law which  makes Missouri the 28th right-to-work state.   Under this new law, effective August 28, 2017, employers are barred from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming a member of a labor organization or to pay dues or other charges required of labor organization members.

Additionally, in Congress The “National Right-to-Work Act.” was recently introduced.  The bill, H.R. 785, introduced by Representatives Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Steve King (R-Iowa), would amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to remove language which permits agency shop agreements. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

February 8, 2017 in Current Affairs, Legislation, Unions | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 2, 2017

The End of Employees

The Wall Street Journal has a thought provoking Feb. 1, 2017 peace entitled The End of Employees. It is about how business are contracting out more and more. Why? Because it is cheaper of course. As the article states:

Steven Berkenfeld, an investment banker who has spent his career evaluating corporate strategies, says companies of all shapes and sizes are increasingly thinking like this: “Can I automate it? If not, can I outsource it? If not, can I give it to an independent contractor or freelancer?”

Hiring an employee is a last resort, Mr. Berkenfeld adds, and “very few jobs make it through that obstacle course.”

Visitors arriving at SAP, based in Walldorf, Germany, likely don’t notice that about 30 receptionists at its U.S. facilities work for contractor Eurest Services, part of Compass Group PLC. It happened in 2014 after SAP executives concluded during a review of potential outsourcing opportunities that some managers were paying their receptionists above-market wages.

SAP handed over hiring, training and oversight of receptionists to an outside firm. They were told they could leave SAP or keep their jobs through Eurest, which pays the receptionists in line with the overall market.

This is of course, nothing new. There is a ton of law concerning the issue of who is an employee which myself and others have written about. This article focuses on cost, but employers also contract out to avoid potential liability as an  employer under our labor and employment laws. This article also leaves out one important fact. While many of the contracted out employees may not be employees of the firm, they may, under certain circumstances become employees of the contractor.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


February 2, 2017 in Employers, Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo Concerning Students and Religious Universities

On January 31, 2017, the  NLRB General Counsel issued the attached Memo Download GC 17_01 Report on the Statutory Rights of University on the statutory rights of university employees and students.

As readers may be aware, the Board  recently issued several significant cases related to university employees and students in representation cases. The Memo essentially states that the General Counsel will continue to determine whether discriminatees are employees protected by the Act.  The Memo also states that the GC will  consider whether scholarship football players at private universities employees under the Act (a question left open by Northwestern).  

Of course, this Memo was issued at an unusual time as it is very likely that the law may change after Trump makes his appointments to the NLRB.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

February 1, 2017 in NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 26, 2017

President Trump Appoints Philip A. Miscimarra NLRB Acting Chairman

The NLRB just released a Press Release which states in part:

President Donald J. Trump has named Board Member Philip A. Miscimarra Acting Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. 

“It is an honor to be named NLRB Acting Chairman by the President,” Miscimarra said. “I remain committed to the task that Congress has assigned to the Board, which is to foster stability and to apply the National Labor Relations Act in an even-handed manner that serves the interests of employees, employers and unions throughout the country.”

Miscimarra also recognized former Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce for his service on the Board. Pearce will continue as a Board Member in a term expiring on August 27, 2018 and has served as a Board Member since 2010 including Chairman since 2011. The Board also currently includes Board Member Lauren McFerran, whose term expires on December 16, 2019. Two Board Member seats are currently vacant

Chairperson Miscrimarra is of course, a Republican.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


January 26, 2017 in NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, January 20, 2017

Alarming Developments at Charlotte Law

This post at The Faculty Lounge by David Frakt suggests utter chaos is underway at Charlotte School of Law, an Infilaw for-profit law school.  Charlotte law had previously pushed back the start of the semester by one week and the Charlotte Law faculty also recently issued a no-confidence vote to the school's leaders.  With wholesale firing of faculty, it is hard to see this school surviving.

Craig Estlinbaum

January 20, 2017 in Law Professors, Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Legal Malpractice Case Involving Labor Arbitration

I do not usually comment on tort cases. However, I recently came across Westchester Hills Gold Club v. Panken, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 30045(U) (New York Co. Jan. 10, 2017), which many readers may find of interest. Download Westchester Hills v. Panken NY County 2017 This is one of a rare set of legal malpractice cases that arose in the context of a labor arbitration.  

In this decision, the court refused to dismiss a legal malpractice case involving advice given by management lawyers in both a disciplinary and contract arbitration. As the court stated in part:

Additionally, this court finds that the complaint sufficiently alleges that defendants' conduct in the
X matter was the proximate cause of plaintiffs damages. The complaint alleges that "but for
[defendants'] malpractice, X's discharge would have been upheld" and that plaintiff would not have
suffered damages in having to pay X back pay for the time during which X was discharged.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' conduct in failing to enforce the terms of the 2010 final
warning, failing to draft and procure an enforceable LCA, failing to investigate the complaints made about
X's conduct during the August 2013 luncheon in order to meet plaintiffs burden of proving that
X was discharged for "just cause" and failing to call any witnesses to testify at the arbitration hearing
who observed X's conduct proximately caused plaintiffs damages in that plaintiff was required to
reinstate X and pay him back pay based on the arbitrator's determination that X should not have
been discharged. . . .

Of course, on a motion to dismiss, courts view the facts plead in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff. None of the allegations may be true and Plaintiff may not ultimately prevail at trial. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 20, 2017 in Arbitration Law, Interesting Cases, Lawyers, Litigation | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, January 6, 2017

Adjunct Savings Are Often Not Reinvested In Faculty Development

Unless you have been living under a bus, it is apparent that adjuncts are being used more and more by colleges as well as by law schools. Adjuncts get paid a fraction-a very small fraction of what the full-timers get, generally have no benefits and almost always are not on a tenure track. 

A new survey looked into what colleges do with this savings. One would have hoped that these monies went into supporting the FT faculty or faculty development. Unfortunately, the study suggests that adjunct savings are often utilized to reduce institution costs. An Insider Higher Education article concerning this issue is available here. As the article states:

  • Private four-year colleges that use large proportions of non-tenure-track faculty members spend 37 percent less on full-time faculty members of all kinds than do similar institutions with small shares of non-tenure-track faculty members. But looking at spending on all categories of full-time employees, these institutions are spending only 19 percent less than those with small shares of non-tenure-track faculty members. So more spending seems possible on the administrative side of the house.
  • The same is true for public four-year colleges, although the spending gaps are 24 percent and 14 percent, respectively.
  • Public four-year colleges are using the savings in instructional costs from relying on adjuncts to increase spending on other areas -- namely maintenance, administrative and student-services staff. Most of this spending is in recruiting, admissions, counseling, student organizations and athletics.
  • Community colleges and private four-year colleges also reduced instructional costs, but they didn’t add to expenses elsewhere, so costs do not actually shift due to increasing reliance on adjuncts.

The above findings come from one of the reports, "The Relationship Between Part-Time and Contingent Faculty and Institutional Spending."

The other report -- "The Shifting Academic Workforce: Where Are the Contingent Faculty?" -- provides data on the pervasive use of adjuncts.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 6, 2017 in Adjunct Information in General, College Professors, Colleges | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Sexual Harassment of Men By Women!

Sexual Harassment of Men, by Woman is on the rise. The January 3, 2016 Detroit Free Press, outlines some statistics, here. As the article states:

                            According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the percentage of sexual harassment                             complaints filed by men has more than doubled over the last 25 years, from 8% in 1990 to 17% in 2015.  That                             year, 1,165 men complained about sexual harassment, compared to 5,656 women.

                            Although the number of men filing claims has leveled off over the past five years, an average of 1,200 men claim                              sexual  harassment every year in American workplaces. Legal experts believe the number could be higher                             because there's still a stigma attached to men complaining about women's sexual advances.

                            "People are surprised that men would complain about this, and that could be a mistake," said Ernest Haffner, an                             EEOC attorney  in Washington, D.C., who tracks harassment in the workplace. "Employers should take                             harassment seriously, regardless of whether it's a man or a woman. They all need to be treated the same."

The law, of course, treats sexual harassment of men the same as for woman. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989); Baskerville v. Culligan Int'l, 50 F. 3d 428 (7th Cir. 1995).


Mitchell Rubinstein


January 3, 2017 in Employment Discrimination, Interesting Cases, News | Permalink | Comments (2)

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Book Review: Farnsworth's Restitution

This summer, South Texas Law Review published my review of Ward Farnsworth's "Restitution: Civil Liability for Unjust Enrichment."  Earlier this month, I posted that review on SSRN.  I really enjoy teaching restitution in my class and this book is a must-have for practitioners looking to improve or develop understanding in this often overlooked area. 

For those interested, the link to the review is here.

Craig Estlinbaum

December 20, 2016 in Book Reviews, Books | Permalink | Comments (1)

Intentional Misconduct Disqualifies a Nurse From Obtaining Unemployment Benefits

In New York and several other states, employees who commit misconduct are not entitled to unemployment insurance. But, what is misconduct? The closer the act comes to an intentional action, as opposed to a negligent action,  the more likely it will be found to constitute disqualifying misconduct. Matter of Trunzo v. Commissioner of Labor, ____A.D. 3d____(3rd Dep't. Dec. 15, 2016), is illustrative of this concept. As the court stated:

"An employee's violation of an employer's reasonable policy, which has a detrimental effect on the employer's interest, has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct" (Matter of Sutton [Albany Med. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1621, 1622 [2011] [citations omitted]). Here, claimant received an employee handbook and was aware of the employer's policy that a physician's order is required for any medication or therapeutic agent placed in a mediset. Claimant knew that the purpose of the policy was to keep the physician informed of any substances being combined with the patient's prescribed medications in order to address any potential harmful interactions. To the extent that claimant asserts that her conduct was unintentional as she just forgot to obtain a physician's order and that such conduct amounted to mere negligence, we note that "[w]hether a claimant's actions rise to the level of [*2]disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve" (Matter of Muniz [Mitarotonda Servs., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 140 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Arroyo [Dry Harbor Nursing Home—Hartnett], 145 AD2d 886, 887 [1988]). Under the circumstances here, where claimant's conduct took place over a period from November 2014 to April 2015, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct and its decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Strang [Memory Gardens, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 112 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2013]; Matter of Farnsworth [Ellis Hosp.—Commissioner of Labor], 108 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2013]; Matter of Meagher [Commissioner of Labor], 89 AD3d 1269, 1269 [2011]), notwithstanding the fact that claimant did not receive any prior warnings.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

December 20, 2016 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 19, 2016

Find My Phone

AndroidDutch filmmaker Anthony Van Der Meer has recently posted his short documentary, "Find My Phone," on You Tube (and Vimeo).

In this 22-minute film, Van Der Meer tracks the movements of a person who stole (or is suspected of stealing) his android phone.  Only Van Der Meer's phone was no ordinary phone stolen under ordinary circumstances.  Before the thief stole the phone, Van Der Meer installed a tracking app (Cerberus) into the phone's system memory.   This app was installed in a manner such that it could not be deleted by resetting the phone or updating the operating system (the film explains how).  This embedded app allowed Van Der Meer to track the phone's location, access its contents and operate it remotely.  Van Der Meer even took a photograph of the user, presumable without the user even knowing.

Next, Van Der Meer purposefully let his phone get stolen (it took four days but eventually, it was stolen).  He then tracked the thief through the app embedded into the phone, learning a surprising amount of information about him.  Van Der Meer received information about when the SIM card was replaced,  tracked the phone's daily movements, took photos and videos remotely, identified the thief's phone and text contacts, read texts, listened in on his private conversations, and purchased updated call credits for the phone.  Van Der Meer is shown doing all these things in the film.

I highly recommend this short film to any lawyer interested in how our digital devices can be used or misused to track and document our whereabouts and activities and to reveal our secret lives and documents.  I am not well-versed enough in current technologies or privacy law generally to comment about the film beyond saying I found it both highly entertaining and eye-opening.  I have seen attorneys call up client documents on their phones and tablets in the courtroom and of course, e-filing has become all the rage.  How secure are these client documents, such as proprietary files or trade secrets?  How secure are sensitive court filings such as adoption records or trade secrets filed in camera?  What about other e-filed information such as tax returns?  It does not seem enough to me to incorporate these devices into practice without considering -- and paying for -- the security tools, training and protocols necessary to keep private matters private.

This film will make you think twice about the personal and business privacy issues related to your phone.

Craig Estlinbaum

December 19, 2016 in Ethics, Film, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The American Dream

An interesting Op Ed. in the December 8, 2016 NY Times, here attempts to quantify a phrase we always here-"The American Dream."

So what is the American Dream? According to this author, it is to have a better standard of living than your parents. The article is full of economic analysis and includes a chart showing that for someone born in 1980 they only have a 50% chance of making more than their parents. As the article states:

                    The resulting research is among the most eye-opening economics work in recent years. You’ve probably                     heard some of the findings even if  you don’t realize it. They have shown that the odds of escaping poverty                     vary widely by region, for instance, an insight that has influenced federal housing policy.

                    After the research began appearing, I mentioned to Chetty, a Stanford professor, and his colleagues that I                     thought they had a chance to do something no one yet had: create an index of the American dream. It took                     them months of work, using old Census data to estimate long-ago decades, but they have done it. They’ve                     constructed a data set that shows the percentage of American children who earn more money — and                     less money — than their parents earned at the same age.

                    The index is deeply alarming. It’s a portrait of an economy that disappoints a huge number of people who                     have heard that they live in a country where life gets better, only to experience something quite different.

                    Their frustration helps explain not only this year’s disturbing presidential campaign but also Americans’                     growing distrust of nearly every major societal institution, including the federal government, corporate                     America, labor unions, the news media and organized religion.

                    Yet the data also helps point the way to some promising solutions.

I am not a fan of economic statistical analysis, but this article makes an interesting read. Frankly, I do not see how the American Dream can be quantified.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 


December 13, 2016 in Information, News | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Columbia University Grad Students Form Union

No surprises here. After the NLRB ruled that graduate students were employees, Columbia University students voted by a margin of more than 2-1  in favor of unionization. here

Of course, within 2 or 3 years it is very likely that the "Trump Board" will reverse Columbia University and return to the holding in Brown University (that students are not employees). 

Welcome to politics as usual at the Labor Board. My students are all very familar with political influence in  NLRB cases. This is just another illustration of why elections matter.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

December 10, 2016 in News, NLRB, Unions | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, December 9, 2016

Lander on Adjunct Law Professors

David Lander (Saint Louis) is a guest blogger at Prawf Blawg this month.  So far, Lander has two posts that may interest adjunct professors of law or persons interested in law school related commentary.  They are:

Regarding the first post, I agree with commenters who find it unlikely that adjuncts with full-time jobs would participate on curriculum committees or other law school committee work.  As for the suggestion adjuncts participate in faculty presentations, an invitation might be appreciated, but participation would likely be catch-as-catch-can.

Regarding the second post, I expect the only reason law schools have not already frozen tenured hires is that the ABA standards require law schools to maintain the full-time faculty they do is that a school that falls the ABA requirement risks a review.  This alone is sufficient reason for law schools to reject the path undergraduate institutions have charted.

The two posts also raise the question whether blog post titles should be capitalized or not, because to be honest, I don't know (or know that it even matters).

I'm looking forward to hearing more from Professor Lander this month.

Craig Estlinbaum


December 9, 2016 in Adjunct Information in General, Blogs, Faculty, Law Professors, Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 5, 2016

2d Circuit Holds That Employees Have Right To Union Representative Before Consenting To Drug Test

Although unreported, Manhatten Beer v. NLRB, ____F.3d____(2d Cir. Nov. 16, 2016), may turn out to be a significant decision concerning Weingarten rights. With very little analysis, the court stated:

Here, the Board reasonably construed the NLRA, in light of relevant judicial and administrative precedent, in determining that Diaz had the right to the physical presence of a union representative before consenting to take a drug test in the context of an investigation that he reasonably believed would result in discipline. See NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 260, 262 (1975). Therefore, we uphold the Board’s conclusion that Manhattan Beer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. In addition, we uphold the Board’s award of the make-whole remedy of reinstatement and backpay. Such relief is available when there is “a sufficient nexus between the unfair labor practice committed (denial of representation at an investigatory interview) and the reason for the discharge.” Taracorp Indus., 273 N.L.R.B. 221, 223 (1984); see also 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). Here, the Board reasonably determined that Manhattan Beer’s discharge of Diaz resulted from Diaz’s assertion of his Weingarten rights. See Ralphs Grocery Co., 361 NLRB No. 9 (2014); Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. Quality Mfg. Co., 420 U.S. 276, 280 (1975). In particular, Manhattan Beer’s documentation supporting Diaz’s termination stated that Diaz was terminated because he “[r]efused to go for drug testing under the reasonable suspicion of substance abuse.” J.A. 264. Consequently, we uphold the Board’s conclusion that Diaz was entitled to reinstatement and backpay.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


December 5, 2016 in Labor Law, NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Excessive Absenteeism Disqualifies Individual For Unemployment

Matter of Mead v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D.3d___(3d Dep't. Nov. 21, 2016) is an interesting case. The case holds that an individual who is excessively absent can be disqualified for unemployment, reasoning:

        Excessive absenteeism, which continues despite repeated warnings, has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a         claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Berkeley [Commissioner of Labor], 94 AD3d 1328,         1328-1329 [2012]; Matter of Seabrook [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d 1165, 1165-1166 [2007]). Here, it is undisputed         that claimant was continually absent from work even after she was warned that further absences would result in disciplinary         action, including discharge. Although claimant [*2]maintains that she did not realize that the last warning was her final one,         this does not excuse her behavior under the circumstances presented.

I believe there is also case law finding no misconduct, for unemployment purposes, when a person is excessively absent through no fault of his own, ie because of medical issues.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


November 22, 2016 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Education Secretary Calls on States to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools

Corporal punishment, believe it or not, is still legal in 22 states. Corporal punishment involves hitting students for the purpose of punishment. This practice was upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1980s.  Now, Eduation Secretary King is calling on those states where corporal punishment is still practiced, to abolish it. See here 

Law review commentary on this topic would be most welcome. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


November 22, 2016 in Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Breaking News! Court Enjoins Obama Executive Order Requiring Disclosure of Labor Law Violations

On July 31, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13673 which requires federal contractors to disclose labor law and employment discrimination violations. This Executive Order also precludes certain contractors from entering into predispute arbitration agreements concerning employment discrimination claims. The Office of Federal Procurement and the Department of Labor in turn issued regulations which were enjoined in Associated Builders and Contractors v. Rung, ___F.Supp. 2d___, 1:16-CV-425 (E.D. Tx. Oct. 24, 2016),  Download ABC PI 10-14-16 This disclosure could result in the contractors being debarred from federal contracts. 

In a lengthly decision, the court preliminary enjoined these regulations as compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and because they conflicted with Congressional statutory mandates which specified how labor law violations needed to be addressed. The court reasoned in part:

                                Finally, even if federal agencies could properly disqualify government contractors based
                                upon final administrative decisions, arbitration awards, and court orders enforcing one of the
                                fourteen labor laws at issue, the Executive Order and FAR Rule should not be allowed to go into
                                effect because they extend their reach far beyond those limited circumstances. The Order and Rule
                                appear to conflict directly with every one of the labor laws they purport to invoke by permitting
                                disqualification based solely upon “administrative merits determinations” that are nothing more
                                than allegations of fault asserted by agency employees and do not constitute final agency findings
                                of any violation at all. As noted above in the Findings of Fact, agency employees who are
                                assigned to administer these labor laws issue thousands of complaints, cause findings, wage
                                notices, and citations each year, many of which are dismissed or significantly reduced after they
                                are contested, often after lengthy proceedings. There is no statutory basis to treat these
                                “administrative merits determinations” as final and binding while they are still being contested or
                                when they are settled without admission of fault. Thus, it appears to be a denial of fundamental
                                statutory and constitutional rights for the Executive Order and FAR Rule to so act.

Labor laws in this country have been widely criticized for being ineffective. This is an important case because it concerns whether it could regulate who it contracts with. This decision will surely be appealed. Law review commentary on this important topic would be most welcome.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

October 25, 2016 in Discrimination Law, Labor Law, Law Review Ideas, Legislation, Litigation, NLRB | Permalink | Comments (0)