Trending
Parental Rights and Judicial Urgency: The Bonta Decision in Comparative Perspective
Parental Rights and Judicial Urgency: The Bonta Decision in Comparative Perspective
By and
Flowers Foods v. Brock: Winners, Losers and Undecided Issues After the Supreme Court’s Latest Decision On Section 1 of the FAA
Flowers Foods v. Brock: Winners, Losers and Undecided Issues After the Supreme Court’s Latest Decision On Section 1 of the FAA
By
From Modest to Rigorous Scrutiny: The FLSA Collective Action at a Crossroads
From Modest to Rigorous Scrutiny: The FLSA Collective Action at a Crossroads
By and
Meredith R. Miller
Meredith R. Miller

Meredith R. Miller is a Professor of Law at Albany Law School. She teaches, writes and practices in the areas of business, contract and employment law. Prior to joining the academy, she served as a law clerk to the New York Court of Appeals and worked as an associate at a large, national law firm, where she litigated complex commercial and pro bono matters. Professor Miller’s scholarly writing focuses on contract doctrine and theory, employment law and closely-held business law. Her scholarship has helped shape the path of the law, and has been cited in leading Contracts casebooks and by a number of courts, including the Maryland Supreme Court and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. She is a graduate of Union College. She received her J.D., cum laude, from Brooklyn Law School, where she was an Executive Articles and Research Editor of the Brooklyn Law Review. She earned an LL.M. in Legal Education from Temple University Law School.

Columns by Meredith R. Miller
Permalink to From Modest to Rigorous Scrutiny: The FLSA Collective Action at a CrossroadsFrom Modest to Rigorous Scrutiny: The FLSA Collective Action at a Crossroads
From Modest to Rigorous Scrutiny: The FLSA Collective Action at a Crossroads
and

Albany Law professor Meredith R. Miller and graduate Grace Ann Porter examine the growing circuit split over the evidentiary standard courts must apply when deciding whether to authorize notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions, tracing the diverging approaches of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Second, and Ninth Circuits. Professor Miller and Ms. Porter argue that the emerging trend toward heightened scrutiny at the certification stage will practically narrow workers' ability to pursue collective wage and hour claims, because requiring plaintiffs to produce more substantial evidence before discovery both suppresses opt-in participation and creates a circular barrier to gathering the very evidence needed to establish similarity.

Permalink to The Current Status of Non-Compete Agreements: It’s ComplicatedThe Current Status of Non-Compete Agreements: It’s Complicated
The Current Status of Non-Compete Agreements: It’s Complicated

Albany Law School professor Meredith R. Miller examines the complex and evolving legal landscape of non-compete agreements in the United States, highlighting how their enforceability varies widely across states and is influenced by shifting political and legal tides, especially after the abandonment of a federal ban by the FTC. Professor Miller argues that outright bans on non-competes, as adopted by a few states, are the most effective policy approach because they provide clarity, protect workers' mobility and bargaining power, and still allow employers to safeguard their interests through less restrictive legal tools.

Permalink to Federal Jurisdiction and the Limited Liability Company: Should the Diversity Statute be Amended?Federal Jurisdiction and the Limited Liability Company: Should the Diversity Statute be Amended?
Federal Jurisdiction and the Limited Liability Company: Should the Diversity Statute be Amended?
and

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, professors Meredith R. Miller and Laura A. Dooley discuss the complexities of federal jurisdiction in cases involving limited liability companies (LLCs), suggesting an amendment to the diversity statute to simplify determining an LLC’s citizenship based on its state of creation and principal place of business. Professors Miller and Dooley evaluate the strategic implications of such a change from both procedural and business law perspectives, considering the impact on litigants’ access to federal courts, the influence of recent legislative efforts on ownership transparency, and the balance between offering fair legal proceedings and maintaining the advantages of state versus federal litigation.