What Does Citizens United Mean for the Workplace?

Few recent Supreme Court decisions have provoked such heated debate as Citizens United v. FEC, which undermined federal restrictions on corporate and union contributions to political campaigns.  Despite all of the discussion of Citizens United, little attention has been paid to the decision’s implications for the workplace.   In a new paper on SSRN, however, Paul Secunda argues that Citizens United may have the effect of lifting some longstanding restrictions on the ability of employers to communicate political messages to their employees.  Paul argues for a statutory response that would prohibit the termination of employees for refusing to attend political meetings at the workplace.

Paul’s paper, entitled “Addressing Political Captive Audience Workplace Meetings in the Post-Citizens United Environment,” appeared in the Yale Law Journal Online here.  The abstract appears after the jump. 

Continue ReadingWhat Does Citizens United Mean for the Workplace?

Big Win for Plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Walmart_1 Looks like a big win for the plaintiffs in the gigantic employment discrimination class action in Dukes v. Wal-Mart (a group of some 2 million former and current female employees have sued over lack of promotion opportunitie).  The 9th Circuit en banc, 6-5 with four separate opinions and 137 pages, affirmed class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) for some issues and remanded on others:

We affirm the district court’s certification of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) class of current employees with respect to their claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back pay. With respect to the claims for punitive damages, we remand so that the district court may consider whether to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). We also remand with respect to the claims of putative class members who no longer worked for Wal-Mart when the complaint was filed so that the district court may consider whether to certify an additional class or classes under Rule 23(b)(3).

The decision was written by Judge Hawkins, with a concurrence by Graber, one dissent by Ikuta and a separate dissent by Kozinski. The latter I am sure is fodder for a cert petition and I do believe this case is heading for a Supreme Court showdown.

Melissa Hart and I have written about how the social framework testimony of William Bielby was crucial, and properly admissible, in establishing the commonality and typicality prong for class certification.

Hat Tip: Rebecca Hamburg

Continue ReadingBig Win for Plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Supreme Court Grants Cert in USERRA Cat Paw’s Case

Cats_paw Ross Runkel’s LawMemo has news of the U.S. Supreme Court granting cert. in a USERRA cat paw case.  You may recall that the Court previously took cert. in another cat’s paw case in 2007 in the Title VII context (BCI Coca-Cola Bottling v. EEOC), but that case was never heard by the Court because it settled.

Here is the 411 from Ross on Staub v. Proctor Hospital (US Supreme Ct cert granted 04/19/2010): 

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Grants Cert in USERRA Cat Paw’s Case
Newer Posts
Older Posts