Barry Winograd
Barry Winograd

Barry Winograd has maintained a full-time dispute resolution practice since 1988 as an arbitrator and mediator of labor and employment cases, as well as business and other civil disputes. He is a member and former president of the National Academy of Arbitrators, and has written a number of articles for legal journals. Mr. Winograd is listed on the rosters of dispute resolution organizations and federal and state courts. In addition, he serves as a permanent arbitrator on panels established by labor-management collective bargaining agreements.

Mr. Winograd has been on the adjunct law school faculty at the University of California, Berkeley since 1985 teaching labor law, arbitration, and mediation courses. He also has taught at the University of Michigan. His previous experience includes service as an administrative law judge for the California Public Employment Relations Board, and as an attorney for the United Farm Workers of America.

Mr. Winograd received his B.A. at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his J.D. and LL.M. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

Columns by Barry Winograd
It Is Time for the Supreme Court to Act: A Four Step Proposal to Strengthen the Court’s Legitimacy

Barry Winograd proposes a four-step plan to restore the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently facing a serious public relations problem. Mr. Winograd calls upon the Court itself to act—rather than waiting for the Executive or the Legislative branch—by: (1) providing live and orderly audio transmission of oral arguments, (2) adopting an enforceable code of ethics binding on all Justices, (3) establishing consistent standards limiting use of the Court’s “shadow docket,” and (4) establishing term limits for the Justices.

Clear Skies or Stormy Weather? The FAA’s Transportation Worker Exception After Southwest Airlines v. SaxonPart Two of a Two-Part Series

In this second of a two-part series of columns on the Supreme Court’s decision in Southwest Airlines v. Saxon, Barry Winograd describes some of the problems posed by the Court’s decision and reasoning. As Mr. Winograd explains, the opinion fails to clarify the governing standard, omits altogether any consideration of the applicable Railway Labor Act, creates confusion as to the classification of supervisors, and does not adequately consider the effects on the “gig” economy.

Clear Skies or Stormy Weather? The FAA’s Transportation Worker Exception After Southwest Airlines v. SaxonPart One of a Two-Part Series

In this first of a two-part series of columns on the Supreme Court’s decision in Southwest Airlines v. Saxon, Barry Winograd summarizes the facts leading up to the case and the Court’s decision and reasoning. In particular, Mr. Winograd explains the two prior decisions addressing the FAA’s transportation worker exemption, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, decided in 2001, concluding that the residual clause in Section 1 covers only transportation workers and not workers generally, and New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, applying the exception to an interstate truck driver classified as an independent contractor and not an employee.

A Settlement for Donald Trump and Stephanie Clifford?

Guest columnist Barry Winograd—an arbitrator and mediator, and lecturer at Berkeley Law—concludes his two-part series of columns on the conflict between President Donald Trump and Stephanie Clifford, the adult film actress known as Stormy Daniels. Winograd argues that both parties would benefit from settling their claims against the other so they can minimize disruption to their personal and professional futures.

The Trump–Clifford Legal Conflict: Who Decides What?

Guest columnist Barry Winograd—an arbitrator and mediator, and lecturer at Berkeley Law—analyzes the settlement agreement purportedly between Donald Trump and Stephanie Clifford, an adult film actress also known as Stormy Daniels. In this first of a two-part series of columns, Winograd describes some of the intricacies of the agreement as well as the budding litigation over it, highlighting some of the strengths and weaknesses in the legal arguments of each side.