Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Weber of Disability Discrimination

DePaul University Law Professor Mark C. Weber  has recently published important scholarship which I would like to bring to my readers' attention. 

  1. Mark Weber, Numerical Goals For Employment of People With Disabilities By Federal Agencies and Contractors, 9 J. H. L. & Pol'y. 35 (2015)
  2. Mark Weber, Intent In Disability Discrimination Law: Social Science Insights and Comparisons To Race and Sex Discrimination, 2016  Illinois L. Rev.  151 (2016)
  3. Mark Weber, Accidentally On Purpose: Intent In Disability Discrimination Law, 16 B.C. College L. Rev. 1417 (2015).  

The Abstract for the Boston College Law Review article is as follows:

American disability discrimination laws contain few intent requirements. Yet courts frequently demand showings of intent in disability discrimination lawsuits. Intent requirements arose almost by accident: through a false statutory analogy; by repetition of obsolete judicial language; and by doctrine developed to avoid a nonexistent conflict with another law. Demanding that section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claimants show intent imposes a burden not found in those statutes or their interpretive regulations. This Article provides reasons not to impose intent requirements for liability or monetary relief in section 504 and ADA cases concerning reasonable accommodations. It demonstrates that no intent requirement applies to ADA employment cases, then explains that the same conclusion should apply to cases under the ADA’s state and local government provisions and section 504. It rebuts an analogy to caselaw under Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act that some courts use to impose intent requirements. It then discusses the reasoning of cases relying on the inappropriate analogy, cases resting on obsolete precedent, and cases refusing to apply remedies to avoid conflicting with federal law. This Article relies on a contextual reading of Supreme Court decisions, the history of the ADA, and policy considerations.

I hope to read these articles shortly.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


May 25, 2016 in Discrimination Law, Law Review Articles | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 5, 2016

State Judge Strikes Wisconsin's Right to Work Law

Machinists v. Wisconsin, Case No. 2015CV000628 (Dane Co. April 8, 2016) Download Wisc Order is an important case.  A state trial judge struck down 2015 Wisconsin Act 1 which was known as the right to work law. This statute prohibits labor organizations from assessing dues on non-union members and negotiating union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements. This case is important because it is the only decision which has struck down a right to work statute. Slip op. at 13. 

Applying the Wisconsin Constitution, the court held that this statute resulted in a taking of property without just compensation. The court engaged in an extensive analysis of property rights and concluded that the union had a property interest in the services they perform  for both members and non-members because labor is a commodity that can be bought and sold. 

No doubt this decision will be appealed. Law review commentary would be welcomed. I am stunned that this decision is not reported.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 

May 5, 2016 in Law Review Ideas, Recent Developments, Unions | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 2, 2016

Call For Papers-Journal Experiential Learning

Dean Patricia E. Salkin (Touro) writes to inform us of an important publishing opportunity. The Journal describes the papers they are looking for as follows:

The Journal of Experiential Learning is interested in articles focused on co-teaching or co-creating educational programs with the academy, the bar and the bench; the use of judges and practitioners to teach skills development or integrative courses; the support programs offered to adjuncts, either those who teach discrete classes or those involved in feld or hybrid clinics or externships. We welcome all articles related to the general topic of opening the academy, of transforming “outsiders” into “insiders” with respect to their roles in educating our future lawyers, and other related topics. If you are interested in submitting an essay of 5,000-10,000 words, lightly footnoted as is typical for online journals, please contact Coordinating Editor Myra Berman at

Additional information can be found by clicking  Download Experiential-Learning-Call-for-Papers-Flyer-Vol2-No2 copy

Mitchell Rubinstein

May 2, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Douglas & Douglas On The Duke Power Fable

Robert Douglas (Labor Arbitrator) and his son Jeffrey Douglas (Melzer, Lipp and Goldstein) just published an important article in the Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal which explores the erroneous analysis utilized by Chief Justice Burger in the Griggs v. Power decision. The Griggs Fable Ignored: The Far-Reaching Impact of a False Premise  Download Douglas-Final This article is well worth a read.

According to the authors, Chief Justice Burger misinterpreted the fable analogy he utilized in the decision. As the authors state:

In the landmark decision of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope of employment discrimination law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights Act) by adopting, authorizing, and endorsing disparate impact1 as an independent cause of action in addition to the preexisting disparate treatment theory of discrimination.2 In the critical paragraph in the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Burger used the fable of The Fox and the Stork as an analogy to explain the Court’s expanded definition of employment discrimination.3 For over forty years, many legal scholars

have analyzed and criticized the Court’s then activist role in creating disparate impact, however, not a single scholar has recognized the importance of examining the Court’s manipulative and incorrect interpretation of the pivotal fable.4 The Chief Justice’s cunning use of the fable enabled the Court to create the legal fiction of disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act.5 In the context of the undetected false premise of Griggs, Congress codified the disparate impact theory in the Civil Rights Act of 1991—twenty years after the Griggs decision.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

April 20, 2016 in Law Review Articles | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Breaking News California Appellate Court Reverses Vergara Which Held Calif Tenure Statutes Unconstitutional

On April 14, 2016, a California appellate court reversed a lower court decision which declared several California tenure statutes unconstitutional under state law. Download Vergara Court of Appeals Opinion

In a lengthy well-reasoned opinion the court rejected a facial challenge to the statute and reasoned that if poor students were receiving an inferior education it was because of staffing decisions, reasoning:    

                It is possible that the challenged statutes—in the way they pertain to teacher tenure and seniority—lead to a higher                        number of grossly ineffective teachers being in the educational system than a hypothetical alternative statutory scheme             would. This possibility may present a problem with policy, but it does not, in itself, give rise to an equal protection         violation, which requires a classification affecting similarly situated groups in an unequal manner. (Cooley, supra, 29             Cal.4th 228, 253.)

       Assuming that poor and minority students encounter more grossly ineffective teachers and that this impacts their             constitutional right to “basic educational equality” (Butt, supra, 4 Cal.4th 668, 681), the constitutional infringement is the            product of staffing decisions, not the challenged statutes. Even if the statutes were struck down, the harm at issue—the             disproportionate assignment of inferior teachers to poor and minority students—could still occur as before. (Any system             will have some teachers who are not as effective as others.) And, since the challenged statutes, on their face and in effect,           do not dictate where teachers are assigned, declaring the statutes facially unconstitutional would not prevent administrators             from assigning the worst teachers to schools serving poor and minority students.

This case attracted significant media attention, several amicus briefs and copycat cases in other states. This high profile case was backed by former CNN reporter Cambell Brown.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

April 14, 2016 in Equal Protection, Law Review Ideas, Legislation, Litigation, Public Sector Labor Law, Recent Developments | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Breaking News. Supreme Court Affirms Friedrichs By An Equally Divided Court

Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Friedrichs v. California Download Friedrichs Teachers Assoc., 578 U.S. ___(2016), where the Court issued a one-line opinion stating that "The Judgement is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

This means that the Abood decision stands and the agency fee statutes which have been enacted in several states remain constitutional. 

However, the battle is not over. You can expect another case to be filed after the election. No matter where you stand on this issue, this makes the upcoming Presidential election even more important. 

How long might it take for this issue to reach the Supreme Court again? No one knows for sure, but my guess is about 3 years and it will take about 4 years for a decision to be issued. But, then again the Court can deny cert. 

In Friedrichs, the complaint was filed on April 30,2013, the District Court granted the PLAINTIFFS MOTION for judgement on the pleadings on behalf of the DEFENDANT on Dec. 5, 2013, the 9th Circuit summarily affirmed on Nov. 18, 2014, the Supremes granted cert. on June 30, 2015 and the decision was issued on March 29, 2016. 

So that adds up to almost exactly 3 years. But, a Supreme Court Justice is likely not to be appointed until after the election say April 2017 and that is how I came up with this time frame. Of course, if Judge Garland is actually appointed to the Court this term, the time frame may be closer to 3 years than 4 years. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 29, 2016 in Public Sector Labor Law, Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, March 18, 2016

Non-JD Program At Hamiline Law School in Cybersecurity and Information Privacy

 Gregory M. Duhl, Rolf and Nancy Engh Distinguished Professor, Mitchell Hamline School of Law writes to inform us of a new non-JD 13 week program which readers may find of interest. A description of the program is below:

The thirteen-week, intensive online certificate program in Cybersecurity and Information Privacy is designed for practicing lawyers who want to develop their privacy and information security expertise or expand their practice areas to advise clients on how cybersecurity law affects business operations.  It is also designed for executives or in-house counsel who need to identify and apply privacy and information security law to make effective decisions.  The program includes courses in information privacy, information systems, risk management, and data breach liability. Professionals who enroll in the program watch lectures from nationally recognized experts, participate in discussions, and complete practical hands-on exercises. The program description can be found here:


Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 18, 2016 in Information, Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (2)

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Can Labor Turn Out The Vote

Readers may be interested in this NY Times article by former NY Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse entitled Can Labor Still Turn Out The Vote. As the article states:

With its shrinking ranks, organized labor, which tilts strongly Democratic, was already struggling to compete with Republican-leaning “super PACs” financed by wealthy conservatives like the Koch brothers, who have vowed with their allies to spend $889 million on this election. Now the labor movement is being buffeted by another force: Donald J. Trump, whose attacks on trade deals, illegal immigrants, Chinese imports and the shifting of jobs overseas are winning over white, blue-collar workers.

Can a weakened labor movement still provide the money, voters and get-out-the-vote muscle to elect the Democratic nominee in crucial swing states, as it has in the past?


Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 6, 2016 in Information, Unions | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Professor Duff on Workers Compensation


Professor Michael Duff (Wyoming Law School) writes to inform us that he has recently posted on SSRN his new piece "Worse than Pirates or Prussian Chancellors: A State's Authority to Opt-Out of the Quid Pro Quo.", 17 Marq. Ben. & Soc. Wel. L. Rev (Summer 2016 Forthcoming). The abstract provides:

Privatization of public law dispute resolution in workplaces has been under intense scrutiny in the context of arbitration. Another kind of workplace dispute privatization is presently underway, or under serious consideration, in several states. In connection with state workers’ compensation statutes, one state has implemented, and others are considering, a dispute resolution model in which employers are explicitly authorized to opt out of coverage. “Alternative benefit plans,” created under such statutes, permit employers to, among other things, unilaterally and without limitation designate private fact-finders, whose conclusions are subject to highly deferential judicial review. This model is arbitration on steroids. While there may be doubts in some quarters about the neutrality of arbitrators, reasonable doubts about the loyalties of an employer-appointed fact-finder are inevitable. Such a design would mark a decisive break with the quid pro quo/Grand Bargain of the early twentieth century, and there is a risk of some states getting caught up in a “race to the bottom,” where states not recognizing a right to a remedy for physical injury become havens of low-cost labor, and thus exert pressure on states that safeguard traditional rights to follow suit. The Supreme Court may be forced to intimate an opinion on the constitutional right to a remedy for personal, and especially physical, injury (whether within or outside of the workplace). The Court has not squarely addressed the issue since 1917, when it decided New York Cent. R. Co. v. White, a case originally upholding the constitutionality of workers’ compensation systems. In White, the Court hinted, but did not clearly establish, that the right to a remedy for physical injury may not be abolished without substitution of a reasonable remedy.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

February 24, 2016 in Law Review Articles | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Kentucky Right To Work Municipal Ordinance Preempted By NLRA

UAW v. Hardin County, ___F. Supp. 2d ___(W.D. Kentucky, Feb. 3, 2016), is an important case.  Download Hardin County Order

A federal court held that a municipal ordinance which mandated right to work and limited union hiring halls and due-checkoff provisions was preempted by the NLRA. The NLRA, of course and most notably in Section 14(b), permits STATES to enact Right to Work laws. 

The decision, which spans 14 pages, is well written and provides a nice summary of the NLRA and existing precedent in this area. As the court explains:

Section 14(b) provides that nothing in the NLRA shall be read to authorize the execution or application of union-security agreements “in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.” 29 U.S.C. § 164(b). As the plaintiffs observe, it makes little sense to read “State or Territorial law” as encompassing local law in light of the statute’s previous reference to “any State or Territory”—if “State or Territorial law” includes the laws of political subdivisions, then the statute must be read “in any State or Territory [or political subdivision thereof]” to avoid assigning two different meanings to “State” in the same sentence. This is not a logical reading; “[a] standard principle of statutory construction provides that identical words and phrases within the same statute should normally be given the same meaning.”

Law review commentary would be most welcome. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein




February 4, 2016 in Labor Law, Law Review Ideas, NLRB, Recent Developments, State Law, Unions | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 28, 2016

BLS Union Membership Stats Just Released

On January 28, 2016, the BLS released their annual statistics on union membership and the results are not pretty if you support unions, particularly in the private sector. Here.  Among the highlights:

•	Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (35.2 percent) more
	than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.7 percent).
	(See table 3.)

•	Workers in protective service occupations and in education, training,
	and library occupations had the highest unionization rates (36.3 percent
	and 35.5 percent, respectively). (See table 3.)

•	Men continued to have a slightly higher union membership rate (11.5
	percent) than women (10.6 percent). (See table 1.)

•	Black workers were more likely to be union members than were White,
	Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

•	Median weekly earnings of nonunion workers ($776) were 79 percent of
	earnings for workers who were union members ($980). (The comparisons
	of earnings in this release are on a broad level and do not control for
	many factors that can be important in explaining earnings differences.)
	(See table 2.)

•	Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership
	rate (24.7 percent), while South Carolina had the lowest (2.1 percent).
	(See table 5.)

Researchers and scholars may find this information very helpful.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 28, 2016 in Unions | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, January 15, 2016

Exotic Dancers Are Employees

Exotic Island Enterprises v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D.3d___ (3rd Dep't. Jan. 14, 2016), raises a whole host of legal questions for which law review commentary is welcome. 

Factually, the court held that exotic dancers are employees for unemployment purposes. Applying the right to control test, the court reasoned:

The corporations challenge the brevity and thoroughness of the investigation by the Department auditor, arguing that it was insufficient to establish that the dancers were employees. However, any evidentiary gaps in the initial investigation were filled through the testimony of Slifstein and the corporations' accountant at the hearing. Slifstein testified that the venues attracted new dancers by placing advertisements in trade magazines and newspapers. Before permitting a dancer to perform at the venues, he would inquire into their prior experience, ask them what schedule they would like, and assess their appearance. If a dancer was not physically fit, he would not permit them to perform at the venues. The dancers were required to provide a driver's license or other form of identification and would not be allowed to dance at the venue if they did not do so. If a dancer lacked experience, he would instruct them to observe a more experienced dancer in order to learn how to "move sexy." Although dancers were not required to report to work at any set time, upon advising the owner of their availability, they would be placed on a nightly schedule posted in the venue for the patrons to view. The venues set the prices that the dancers would charge patrons for private dances and retained a percentage of the money earned. Although the dancers provided their own makeup and costumes, the venue provided the stage for the dancers to perform on, sound equipment and, at times, the music accompanying the dances. The corporations' accountant also testified that the corporations carried workers' compensation coverage for the dancers. Thus, despite other evidence that may have supported a contrary result, we find the Board's decision that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to be supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Enjoy the Show Mgt. [Commissioner of Labor], 287 AD2d 822, 822-823 [2001]; see also Matter of Human Performance, Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 28 AD3d 971, 972 [2006]).

If this is so and a dancer is sexually harassed, can they bring a Title VII case, an OSHA case is their is a safety issue etc. I would think so. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 15, 2016 in Employment Law, Law Review Ideas | Permalink | Comments (2)

Sunday, January 10, 2016

Doctor Unions

An interesting article in the Jan 9, 2016 NY Times about Doctor Unions can be found here. It addresses some of the personal and professional concerns that doctors employed by hospitals have. Doctors are employees like everyone else. While the article does not highlight the legal issues concerning doctor unionization, one of the major issues that some of them may face is a claim that they are supervisors. Undoubtably, some are, but many are not and they should be able to join a union just like anyone else.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 10, 2016 in Unions | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, December 26, 2015

2 Year Law School Degree Programs

Interesting December 25, 2015, NY Times article entitled The 2-Year Law Education Fails to Take Off, is available here

Personally, I am very much against these programs. While they may sound interesting on paper, it takes time to learn the law and even more time to learn legal research and writing. The number one, two and three problem that I see with law students today is that they do not have enough research and writing experience. The only way to learn it is to do it. I believe students will learn materially less is two courses are streamlined into one even though the amount of credit hours may remain the same.

What do you think?

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Did you notice that this article was published on Christmas.


December 26, 2015 in Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

99 Things to Do With Your JD, Besides Practice Law

Interesting Findlaw Article I just saw, here. Their first few examples are as follows:

99 Things to Do With Your JD, Besides Practice Law - Greedy Associates

  1. Public policy advisor
  2. Think tank contributor
  3. John Grisham

  4. Start a non-profit

  5. Demetri Martin
  6. Mayor
  7. High school political science teacher
  8. Public health graduate student
  9. President Obama
  10. Pastry chef
  11. Law firm recruiter
  12. Law school recruiter
  13. Loan officer
  14. Contract negotiator
  15. Human resources specialist

Mitchell H. Rubinstein



December 15, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

On Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.

Last week in class we discussed the famous case Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P.2d 109 (1962).  The case involved a contract wherein the Peevyhouses allowed Garland to strip-mine on their farm property.  In lieu of the standard $3,000 up-front payment for surface damages, the Peevyhouses negotiated a clause requiring Garland to perform certain "restorative and remedial work" on the property after completing their mining operations.  Garland mined the property and extracted their profits, then breached the restoration provision.  The Peevyhouses sued for breach of contract.  The evidence at trial apparently provided the cost to perform the work would be $29,000 -- but that the diminution in property value resulting from the breach was only $300.  The jury split the difference, sort of, by awarding the Peevyhouses $5,000, an amount the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared to be "more than the total value of the farm even after the remedial work is done." 

The Oklahoma Supreme Court modified the judgment for the Peevyhouses, awarding $300 -- the value lost.  To say the least, the decision remains a controversial one.  In 2008, at PrawfsBlawg, Eric E. Johnson (North Dakota) conducted a survey to name "The Most Screwed Victims in Case-Law History."  Willie and Lucille Peevyhouse won that competition in a landslide.   Twenty years ago, Judith Maute published a comprehensive article on the case, Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. Revisited:  The Ballad of Willie and Lucille in the Northwestern Univ. Law Review.  Maute's article is fascinating for many reasons, not the least of which is the section on the Oklahoma Supreme Court bribery scandal that followed the case.  Whether that scandal contributed to the Peevyhouse result remains, it seems, an open question.

Peevyhouse exemplifies the "economic waste doctrine" -- a contract law doctrine memorialized in the Restatement[1].  The doctrine finds its origins in Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 129 N.E. 889 (9121).  There, a homeowner sued the home builder for using Cohoes plumbing pipe when the contract required Reading brand pipe.  Reversing the trial court's decision to exclude diminution of value evidence, the Court held that cost to complete is the proper damages measure unless, "the cost of completion is grossly and unfairly out of proportion to the good to be attained.”  The defendant in Jacobs & Young appear to have the better of the argument -- in Peevyhouse, not so much (hence perhaps the result in Johnson's poll, above).  Scholars have written to distinguish the two cases and better define the economic waste doctrine's contours.  A good starting point is Carol Chomksy, "Of Spoil Pits and Swimming Pools:  Reconsidering the Measure of Damages for Construction Contracts," 75 Minn. L. Rev. 1445 (1991) (download link).

More recently, the Oregon Supreme Court discussed its economic waste doctrine at some length in Montara Owners Assoc. v. La Noue Development, Inc., 353 P.3d 563 (Or. 2015) in a case ultimately decided on harmless error grounds.  For its own part, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the Peevyhouse holding on certified question in  Schneberger v. Apache Corp., 890 P.2d 847 (1994).

Craig Estlinbaum

[1] Restatement (Second) Contracts, sec. 348, cmt. c (1981).

November 18, 2015 in Contract Issues, Interesting Cases, Remedies | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Ohio State: Election Law Symposium

On Friday, November 2o, the Ohio State Law Journal is hosting "The History and Future of Election Law." According to their website:

There will be four panels: (1) The History and Future of Redistricting and Gerrymanders, (2) The History and Future of Campaign Finance, (3) The History and Future of Voting Rules and (4) The History and Future of Election Law Generally.

Craig Estlinbaum

November 17, 2015 in Conferences, Faculty, Law Review Articles | Permalink | Comments (0)

Law Reviews: New In Print

New York University Law Review, Volume 90, No. 4, includes articles and essays from the symposium, "Testing the Constitution," including:

  • Forward: Testing the Constitution (Lee Epstein, Barry Friedman & Geoffrey R. Stone)
  • Testing Shaw v. Reno:  Do Majority-Minority Districts Cause Expressive Harms? (Stephen Ansolabehere & Nathaniel Persily)
  •  Rhetoric and Reality: Testing the Harm of Campaign Spending  (Rebecca L. Brown & Andrew D. Martin)
  • Measuring That Chilling Effect  (Brandice Canes-Wrone & Michael C. Dorf)
  • The Decision to Depart (or Not) From Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court (Lee Epstein, William M. Landes & Adam Liptak)
  • Testing the Marketplace of Idea (Daniel E. Ho & Frederick Schauer)
  • Litigating State Interests: Attorneys General as Amici (Margaret H. Lemos & Kevin M. Quinn)
  • Student Notes and Comments

The University of Illinois Law Review, Volume 2015, No. 5, features a symposium, "Choice-of-Law Methodology: Fifty Years After Brainerd Currie," and other articles:

  • Regulating Mass Surveillance As Privacy Pollution: Learning From Environmental Impact Statements (A. Michael Froomkin)
  • Re-Assembling Labor (Marion Crain, John Inazu)
  • The Choice-of-Law Revolution Fifty Years After Currie:  An End and a Beginning (Symeon C. Symeonides)
  • Multistate Justice:  Better Law, Comity and Fairness in the Conflict of Laws (Joseph William Singer)
  • Remembering Brainerd Currie (Herma Hill Kay)
  • Hard Cases, Single Factor Theories, and a Second Look at the Restatement 2D of Conflicts (Lea Brilmayer)
  • A Radically Transformed Restatement for Conflicts (Louise Weinberg)
  • Eurpoean Conflicts Law After the American "Revolution" - Comparative Notes (Peter Hay)
  • Student Notes.

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume 164, No. 1, includes:

  • A National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court (Ingrid V. Eagly and Steven Shafer)
  • Toward a Pigouvian State (Jonathan S. Masur and Eric A. Posner)
  • Anti-Trust in Zero-Price Markets: Foundations (John M. Newman)
  • Time to Drop the Infield Fly Rule and End a Common Law Anomaly (Andrew J. Guilford and Joel Mallord)
  • Student Comments

Craig Estlinbaum

November 17, 2015 in Law Review Articles | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Will Title VII Be Amended To Ban Discrimination Against Gays and Transgender Employees?

The Washington Post published an interesting article on November 11, 2015 stating that the Obama Administration is supporting an amendment to Title VII which would ban discrimination against homosexuals and transgender employees. Here.

Interesting, the Obama administration is not supporting enactment of a separate statute which has been introduced into Congress known as ENDA. I wonder why? I have not studied the differences, if any, between these two Bills. 

As the article points out, for years, LGBT community has been trying to extend the reach of the Supreme Court's Price Waterhouse decision on sexual sex-sterotyping to outlaw this type of employment discrimination. 

Whether as an amendment to Title VII or a free standing statute, enactment of such legislation is the next logical step after the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. The only question in my mind is whether Congress will go beyond "same sex" discrimination and ban transgender discrimination as well. It is about time that they do.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hat Tip:

Workplace Prof Blog




November 15, 2015 in Discrimination Law, Law Review Ideas | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Law Reviews: New In Print

Harvard Law Review, Volume 129, No. 1, features The Supreme Court 2014 Term, including:

  • Does the Constitution Mean What it Says (David A. Strauss)
  • Imperfect Statutes, Imperfect Courts:  Understanding Congress's Plan in the Era of Unorthodox Lawmaking (Abbe R. Gluck)
  • Zivotofsky II as Precedent in the Executive Branch (Jack Goldsmith)
  • A New Birth of Freedom?: Obergefell v. Hodges (Kenky Yoshino)
  • Leading Cases

The Harvard Law Review Forum includes responses from Richard H. Fallon, Richard T. Lazurus, Hon. Richard A. Posner and Lawrence Tribe.

Northwestern University Law Review, Volume 109, N0. 4, includes:

  • Purposivism in the Executive Branch: How Agencies Interpret Statutes (Kevin M. Stack)
  • Remote Adjudication in Immigration (Ingrid M. Eagley)
  • Student Notes and Comments

Craig Estlinbaum


November 12, 2015 in Law Review Articles | Permalink | Comments (0)