Much has been written lately about companies’ unwillingness to invest or create new jobs in California. 2010 was the first census in which California did not add a member of Congress. Other states, including Texas, are seeing large influxes of new jobs and people. Some have suggested that California law (as passed by the legislature and as made by the courts) contributes to a negative business climate that discourages investment and job creation. This panel will look at California laws involving employment issues, tort liability, and environmental regulation and compare California’s approach to those of other states, including Texas to determine whether the law has become an impediment to job creation in California. This panel was featured at the Sixth Annual Western Conference on January 28, 2012. Featuring Mr. William J. Emanuel of Littler Mendelson PC; Mr. Jed Kolko of Trulia; Mr. H. Scott Leviant of Spiro Moss LLP; Mr. David A. Schwarz of Irell & Manella LLP; Ms. Kate Comerford Todd of the National Chamber Litigation Center; and Judge Carlos T. Bea of the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society's Facutly Division hosted this panel on "Public Sector Unions" on Friday, January 6, 2012, during the 14th Annual Faculty Conference. Speakers included Prof. Samuel Estreicher of New York University School of Law; Prof. John McGinnis of Northwestern University School of Law; Prof. Joseph Slater of the University of Toledo College of Law; and Prof. James Lindgren of Northwestern University School of Law as the moderator.

There are two primary trends guiding contemporary labor and employment law. The first is the recognition and incorporation of technology into existing law. Labor law has led the way with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board)’s increased focus on social media firings. The second is increased fairness measures at the expense of legal certainty. Employment law has led the way here, with recent regulations interpreting the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) as well as judicial expansion of Title VII to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. [Read more!]

Under a system of government that diffuses power and makes institutional “[a]mbition . . . counteract ambition,” sudden power grabs by a federal agency are rare. Nevertheless, they do occur, particularly when they can be conducted “under the radar.” A lawsuit can be a very successful means for launching a power struggle without arousing much public attention. As Justice Scalia famously observed, most lawsuits involving the allocation of governmental power arrive in court “clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis.” [Read more!]