MENU

Labor & Employment Law

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Teleforum Wednesday, August 19, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call

            On June 30, 2015, the Supreme Court decided to revisit whether the First Amendment permits the government to compel its employees to financially support a union by granting certiorari in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915. In Friedrichs, the Court will consider whether to overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which held that public employees can be compelled to financially support union collective-bargaining with government, but not union political activities.

            The Court’s grant of certiorari in Friedrichs comes on the one-year anniversary of its decision in Harris v. Quinn, where Court criticized Abood’s rationales, but did not overrule Abood after finding it inapplicable to the non-employee Medicaid providers who brought the case. Unlike Harris, Friedrichs squarely presents the issue decided in Abood—whether public school teachers can be required to pay compulsory union fees as condition of their employment.       

            The Friedrichs petitioners argue that Abood should be overturned because there is no distinction between bargaining with government and lobbying government—both are political speech. The respondent California Teachers Association, however, counters that union bargaining with government is akin to bargaining with a private employer, and that it wrongful for teachers to get a so-called “free ride” on union bargaining efforts.

            Is the Court likely to overrule Abood? And what will be the implications if it does?         

  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine
  • William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

Overtime Regulations, Independent Contractor Misclassification and Other Developments at the Department of Labor - Podcast

Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
Paul DeCamp, Alexander Passantino July 24, 2015

July has been a busy month for the Department of Labor (DOL). On July 6th, DOL published proposed revisions to the “white collar” overtime regulations which would more than double the minimum salary level required for exemption. On July 10th, DOL defended its 2011 tip credit regulations before the Ninth Circuit in Oregon Restaurant & Lodging v. Perez. Last week, on July 15th, DOL issued new guidance – an “Administrator’s Interpretation” – concluding that “most” workers are employees, not independent contractors. A decision on the validity of DOL’s home care worker regulations is expected any day from the D.C. Circuit in Home Care Association v. Weil, and in August, DOL is expected to issue a request for information on the use of electronic devices by overtime-protected employees outside of scheduled work hours. In this teleforum, the Bush Administration’s wage-hour team at DOL provided a briefing on these developments and discussed what else we can expect from DOL over the next 18 months.

  • Paul DeCamp, Jackson Lewis P.C.
  • Alexander J. Passantino, Seyfarth & Shaw

The Future of Arbitration Agreements after the CFPB Study - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum
Deepak Gupta, Andrew J. Pincus July 17, 2015

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 instructs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study “the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute . . . in connection with the offering or providing of consumer financial products or services,” and to provide a report to Congress on the same topic.  This past March, the CFPB issued its study, pursuant to the statutory requirement.  Is the “arbitration study” an anti-arbitration study?  Our experts discussed the report and its implications.

  • Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
  • Mr. Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP

King v. Burwell: What are the consequences?

Short video debate with Michael Cannon and Robert Weiner
Michael Cannon, Robert N. Weiner June 22, 2015

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Robert N. Weiner, Partner at Arnold & Porter debate the potential consequences of the Court’s ruling concerning whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

King v. Burwell: What is in dispute?

Short video debate with Michael Cannon and Robert Weiner
Michael Cannon, Robert N. Weiner June 22, 2015

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Robert N. Weiner, Partner at Arnold & Porter debate whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.