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.
Illinois Law professor Matthew W. Finkin and arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd critique President Trump’s Executive Order 14251, which excludes many federal employees from union protections and collective bargaining on the grounds of national security. The authors argue that the Administration’s justification, based on flawed data from a partisan report, misrepresents arbitration’s impact on performance management and that existing laws already safeguard national security without undermining federal labor rights.
NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher responds to an op-ed by Ron Holland criticizing the recent announcement of a members-only union of 300 Google workers. Professor Estreicher points out several errors and assumptions in Mr. Holland’s piece, and he argues that, in sum, there is no good public policy case for barring or restricting members-only unionism.
NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and adjunct professor Zachary Fasman comment on two bills passed by the New York City Council that would mandate detailed and extensive labor protections for fast-food workers in New York City. Professors Estreicher and Fasman praise the intent behind the laws but explain why the City Council is not the place where binding agreements governing private workplaces in the City should be enacted.
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that the pro-business, anti-union expressed during oral argument and in the majority opinion in Janus v. AFSCME, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by the other conservative justices including Justice Anthony Kennedy, epitomizes both Kennedy’s right-wing fundamentalism and the direction in which the Court would have continued to move even if he had chosen not to retire. Buchanan points out that the trend among the conservative justices is to insulate conservatives—especially Christian Republicans—from having to be in any way connected to anything with which they disagree, such as collective bargaining, sexual liberation, or provision of contraception.
