MENU

Labor Law

Religious Accommodation in the Workplace: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores - Podcast

Labor & Employment Law and Religious Liberties Practice Groups Podcast
Michael E. Rosman June 04, 2015

When is an employer liable or not liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice?”  We discussed the case decided on June 1, 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court.on this Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call.

  • Michael E. Rosman, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights

The New NLRB Representation Case Rule - Podcast

Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
Homer L. Deakins, Jr., Brent Garren, John N. Raudabaugh March 30, 2015

On December 15, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board published a final rule amending its representation case procedures, which will become effective on April 14, 2015. According to the Board, the final rule retains the essentials of existing representation case procedures but removes “unnecessary barriers to the fair and expeditious resolution of representation cases.” Among other things, the rule shortens the election process to as few as 14 days from the current median time of 38 days, requires employers to give unions employees’ personal telephone numbers and email addresses, and makes post-election appeals discretionary with the Board rather than as of right.

The final rule has been challenged in lawsuits brought by employer associations in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia and Western District of Texas. The complaints allege that the rule will restrict communication between employers and employees before an election, depriving employers of due process and speech rights and employees of information needed to decide intelligently how to vote.

  • Homer L. Deakins, Jr., Chairman Emeritus, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
  • Brent Garren, Deputy General Counsel, Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union
  • Hon. John N. Raudabaugh, former member, National Labor Relations Board, Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law, Ave Maria School of Law, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation

Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Post-Argument SCOTUScast featuring Paul Mirengoff
Paul E. Mirengoff January 27, 2015

On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This case involves the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Title VII duty to investigate claims of discrimination levied against an employer and to make good faith efforts to eliminate discriminatory employment practices before filing suit against that employer. The question this case asks is whether and to what extent a court may enforce the EEOC's duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.

To discuss the case, we have Mr. Paul Mirengoff, Mr. Mirengoff is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. and is a blogger at powerlineblog.com.

Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 12-18-14 featuring Karen Harned
Karen Harned December 18, 2014

On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. This case concerned whether time employees spend undergoing mandatory security screenings after work is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, which clarifies that certain activities are generally not compensable working time under the FLSA.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that the time that employees spent waiting to undergo (and undergoing) security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Kagan joined. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed.

To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is the Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

The Minimum Wage - Event Video

2014 National Lawyers Convention
Ross Eisenbrey, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Karen Harned, David Weil, William Kuntz November 14, 2014

In January 2014, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama called on Congress to raise the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.  In February, President Obama used his pen to raise the minimum wage for employees working on government contracts to $10.10 through an Executive Order.  This panel will explore the policy and economics of increasing the minimum wage, which the White House asserts will lift wages for millions of Americans and boost the bottom lines of businesses.

The Federalist Society's Labor & Employment Law Practice Group presented this panel on "The Minimum Wage" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Ross Eisenbrey, Vice President, Economic Policy Institute and former Member, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
  • Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, former chief economist, U.S. Department of Labor
  • Mrs. Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Foundation
  • Hon. David Weil, Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor
  • Moderator: Hon. William F. Kuntz, II, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC