Over the next few months, the Supreme Court will hear two major cases that could prove a major setback to unions' ability to organize and collect dues -- and the conservative majority on the court is making pro-labor advocates nervous.
In UNITE HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall, the court will decide whether agreements between unions and employers that set the ground rules for union organizing violate the anti-corruption provision of the Labor Management Relations Act. That may sound pretty specific, but it could have far-reaching effects, leading labor expert and Harvard Law School professor Benjamin Sachs to write that this “could be the most significant labor law case in a generation.” In this particular case, the union, Unite Here Local 355, struck an agreement with Mardi Gras, a Florida casino company, under which the casino would not interfere in the union’s organizing drive, and in return, the union promised not to strike during that organizing period. That kind of agreement is standard practice across the country. The challenge to this routine agreement alleges that the casino’s concessions to the union, which included a promise to remain neutral during the organizing campaign, violates an anti-corruption statute that was intended to keep employers from bribing unions by specifically prohibiting companies from giving union officials “things of value.” Until very recently, no one considered that these organizing agreements would constitute... |
Class actions have been a major vehicle to creating safer workplace in the past. It is imperative that the people have their day in court to maintain a democratically balanced system of government. Today's post article is shared from businessweek.com.
He’s worried about business drying up. As a result of hostile Supreme Court rulings over the last several years, scores of mass consumer and employment suits that would have been viable a decade ago have been dismissed, says Bland, a senior attorney with Public Justice, a nonprofit in Washington. “People bring me cases against cable companies or big employers, and I say, ‘Forget it. It’s impossible. Not even worth trying.’ ” The mass lawsuit—in which hundreds or even thousands of plaintiffs join together to go after a corporate defendant—is in deep trouble. Growing judicial skepticism toward such suits and toward the lucrative settlements they generate has caused plaintiffs’ attorneys to shy away from accepting lengthy, complicated cases. That’s tilting the legal playing field decisively in favor of Big Business—and as the Supreme Court reconvened on Oct. 7 for its 2013-14 term, trial lawyers are bracing for more setbacks. Not everyone is shedding tears. Walter Olson, a legal expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, attributes the decline of mass lawsuits to a predictable—and... |
The New York City Bar Association says it supports a proposal on the state’s Nov. 5 ballot to amend the New York Constitution to raise the mandatory retirement age to 80 for state Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices.
The state constitution currently requires all state judges to retire at age 70. However, judges of the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, and justices of the state’s main trial court, the Supreme Court, may serve for up to six years after retirement so long as court administrators certify every two years that the judge’s services are necessary to expedite the business of the court, and he or she is mentally and physically able and competent to perform the full duties of the office. “The City Bar supports Proposal 6, consistent with our longstanding position that the mandatory judicial retirement age, which was enacted in 1869, is outdated,” the bar association said in a statement Monday. “Many individuals who reach the age of 70 have a substantial number of productive years ahead of them. Many states and the federal judiciary permit judges to serve past the age of 70, and New York should as well.” The association argues that raising the retirement age would ease a strained court system — in particular, permit the transfer of Supreme Court justices to the state’s overburdened family courts. In Pennsylvania, three groups of judges sued over... |
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the tobacco industry’s appeal of a Florida ruling that may help thousands of smokers sue cigarette makers over smoking-related illnesses. The nation’s highest court today turned away arguments by Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Vector Group Ltd.’s Liggett unit. They challenged a $2.5 million award to the family of Charlotte Douglas, who died in 2008 of lung cancer at age 62. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to intervene in tobacco litigation in Florida, where more than 4,500 smoker suits are pending. So far, Florida juries have returned verdicts totaling more than $500 million against the industry, the companies said in their appeal. Cigarette makers are seeking to limit the effect of a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision, which said a jury’s factual findings against the industry in a class-action case could serve as the starting point for individual suits. The Florida high court reaffirmed that ruling in the Douglas case. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the tobacco companies said they were being deprived of their constitutional right to due process of law. “It is impossible to conclude with any certainty in any of these cases that any jury in any proceeding has ever decided all the elements of the plaintiff’s claims in his or her favor,” the companies contended in their appeal. Douglas’s widower, James,... |
A hearing has been scheduled for one of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s state Supreme Court nominees.
According to NewsWorks, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for Oct. 17 on Judge Faustino Fernandez-Vina’s nomination to the state’s high court.
Christie, whose previous attempts to fill the vacant seats on the state’s high court have failed, nominated Fernandez-Vina in August.
The Cuban-born Republican has served as a judge on the New Jersey Superior Court since July 2004.
“In the words of the late Sen. John Adler, Judge Fernandez-Vina had ‘the highest level of competence and he’s just the total package,’” Christie said in August.
“Last year Chief Justice (Stuart) Rabner named Judge Fernandez-Vina the assignment judge of the Camden Vicinage. At that time, the chief justice said the following, ‘Judge Fernandez-Vina brings to the position of assignment judge a wealth of experience, a proven, practical approach to addressing issues, superb judgment and the respect of the bench and bar.’ Those are his words not mine.”
Christie said he couldn’t agree more.
“Beyond his time in public life Judge Fernandez-Vina had 22 years of private sector legal experience where he tried in excess of 100 cases and was a certified civil trial attorney certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court,” the governor said, noting...
|
Dependency benefits under the NJ workers' compensation system are going to expand.
A New Jersey judge ruled on Friday that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, saying that not doing so deprives them of rights that were guaranteed by the United States Supreme Court in June.
It is the first time a court has struck down a state’s refusal to legalize same-sex marriage as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling, and with lawsuits pending in other states, it could presage other successful challenges across the country.
The decision was a rebuff to Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature last year that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. His office said it would appeal to the state’s highest court. And he is likely to seek a stay preventing same-sex marriages from beginning on Oct. 21, as the judge ordered.
New Jersey was particularly ripe for a challenge after the Supreme Court ruling, because of a previous ruling by the state’s highest court in 2006. In that decision, in the case Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples were entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage. But the court stopped short of saying they had a fundamental right to marry, and in an unusual step instructed the Legislature to define how to confer equal protection.
“The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts,” Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State...
|
