Sarbanes-Oxley

I found this on the web and I thought it would be a good preface before we officially discuss it in class:

With the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Reform Act of 2002, internal and external whistleblower protection has been extended to all employees in publicly traded companies for the first time. The provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley

• Make it illegal to "discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass or in any manner discriminate against" whistleblowers
  
  
• Establish criminal penalties of up to 10 years for executives who retaliate against whistleblowers
  
  
• Require board audit committees to establish procedures for hearing whistleblower complaints
  
  
• Allow the secretary of labor to order a company to rehire a terminated employee with no court hearing
  
  
• Give a whistleblower the right to a jury trial, bypassing months or years of administrative hearings

Is this in line with what we drew out today? What else should be added to this list? Why not apply this rule to private companies as well? There is a penalty of ten years in jail for the executives that retaliate, but this only gives the whistleblower a rehire. Is this sufficient? The whistleblower is sure to encounter forms of harassment that are not addressed here. Are punitive or even treble damages in order? The rest of the whistleblower's life could be ruined and a rehire does not seem sufficient for someone who sacrifices their life for the good of the whole. These people should be regarded as heroes who fight the potentially life threatening battle of obedience to authority. Does anyone remember Stanley Milgram?

Before we discuss privacy next week...

Before we discuss privacy next week I am interested in seeing what everybody feels is a sacred privacy and what they deem as privacy that can be invaded.

For example, employees that telecommute are/can be under surveillance in their own home and employees that accept company phones can be tracked as long as they have the phone (regardless of if they are on or off duty).

Where does everybody feel the line is between personal privacy and protection of society? What about in the workplace? Where does the workplace end and home begin?

Continuation from Class 01/29

After leaving class today, I was thinking that when it comes to whistleblowing, I would hope that people would take a utilitarian view. If the good of most of society is going to benefit from the information made public by the whistleblower, then I think that is great! If I were a smoker, I would like to know what really was in my cigarettes. If I were a new pet owner, I would like to know if the new member to my household was possibly sick. Has anything really all that negative come out of whistleblowing? I know that if you are the one coming forward the whole topic may be different, but when it comes to whether or not to do it...I don't really see the question. Does that sound too naive? :o)

Immigrant Employment

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/usimmig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Here is an interesting article about illegal immigrants working in the US that are a part of a union. I think anyone who wants to work in this country should be allowed to do so. As long as the workers are paying taxes, who cares? I support an open border with Mexico. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, so why are we taking the opportunity away from people who are willing to work?

More money = more problems?

More money = more problems?

Have a look at this article and leave any comments on if you believe that money leads to happiness. I know this does not have direct relation to the current course material, but it should provide for an interesting opinionated discussion. My opinion is that money is the foundation for happiness. I am a poor college student who is behind in paying the bills and is racking up the debt to pay for tuition. Not to say that I consider myself unhappy, but I do have trouble falling asleep once in a while because I am worried that my utility companies are going to report me to credit agencies. Its bad enough that I will have debt from tuition as soon as I graduate, so I don't need debt from day to day life as well. I have bigger fish to fry, like a five page paper, exams, group projects, and interviews in order to get a job to pay off the debt I'm racking up. Bills are the last thing I need to waste time on!

Teacher fired for "butt-printing" art..

In a really humorous article in today's IDS , a Virginia teacher was fired after a video of himself "butt-painting" (on his own time) was circulated among his high school students. He's hired the ACLU to challenge his firing, and I'm assuming he's going to use his right to free speech as a 'substantial public policy' exception to at-will employment. By comparing his case to the four stipulations that must be met to successfully demonstrate an exception due to substantial public policy, (Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, Inc.) I think he might actually have a case. First, a clear public policy upholding free speech and expression is ubiquitous in American foundational law. Second, dismissing employees for circumstances like the teacher's might jeopardize the public policy and leave it vulnerable to further legal erosion. Third, the employee's dismissal seems to be related directly to the 'butt-printing.' However, the fourth stipulation might not be met. I think the employer (the school district) might be able to prove that they had overriding legitimate business justification for firing Murmur. They comment at the end of the article that "students have a right to receive their education in a positive learning environment and that teachers are expected to lead by example, be role models, and honor core values." What other ways that Murmur or the school board can back up their cases? How do you think it will turn out?

Employment Issues Hit Close to Home

Two stories in today's IDS have some bearing on issues of employment law and policy.

First, this story details the latest in the search for IU's next president. Note that many jobs in academia do not fall under the traditional employment-at-will rule (e.g., tenured professors as we discussed in class the first week or sports coaches who get paid long after they've left their posts). Administrators like the president of the University are no exception. The next president's employment will be subject to a multi-year contract, not terminable at will.

Second, there is the story about the ongoing controversy over the Trustees' decision whether to outsource certain functions that are currently performed by IU employees. Outsourcing (and it's international sibling, offshoring) is, and has been, a hot topic in human resources management and is rife with legal issues, especially with a unionized workforce. What do you think? Setting aside any legal technicalities with which you may not yet be familiar, how do you balance this potential cost saving against the effect it will have on the employees? In a situation that treats the employment contract as relational, what would happen?

Bad Bosses

CnnMoney.com has a fun feature with 18 stories of "Bosses Behaving Badly." Some are illegal actions by the managers or CEOs; some are just actions in poor taste or bad judgment.

Religious discrimination case

I just read this case last night and I think it is an example of blatant religious discrimination. The employee claims that the employer frequently asked inappropriate questions during interviews in an attempt to find out the applicant's religious views and then would give preferential treatment to Christian applicants. A professor of social ethics comments in the article that explicit religious beliefs are similar to having a strong corporate culture: employees know what actions will benefit or harm them. Do you agree? Does encouraging a certain religious lifestyle compare to encouraging employees to follow cultural guidelines such as staying late at the office?
I also found it interesting (if not humorous) that the employer states "It's my company, I can run it the way I want." While I disagree with his hiring practices, it does make me question how much power a business owner should have in his hiring decisions. What do you think? Should he be able to "run it the way he wants"?

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawsuit Against Big Law Firm -- Take II

Here's a more extensive take by Professor Scott Moss about the sexual orientation lawsuit against Sullivan & Cromwell (discussed below).

Read it. Professor Moss is a former employment plaintiff's attorney, so he knows something about this.

Discrimination Against Obese Man Legal

I thought this case was an interesting example of outright employment discrimination that is legal. In Goodman vs. L.A. Weight Loss Center , a morbidly obese man is not hired by the weight loss center because he did not "fit the company image." I think the case is frivolous but could lead to some interesting implications in other cases. What do you guys think? Do you see a problem with legal employment discrimination based on physical characteristics??

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawsuit Against Big Law Firm

An associate attorney at the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell in New York City has sued the firm for sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation under a New York City ordinance.

It will be a few weeks before we start talking about employment discrimination claims, especially sexual orientation discrimination; however, I thought this story was worth bringing to your attention now. We can discuss it in more detail when we get to that unit of the course.

Here's a really interesting blog post about the case from one of my favorite law blogs. Notice that Professor Moss is only suggesting that the complaint is well-crafted enough to entitle Charney, the plaintiff, to discovery. He is not, at this point, suggesting that Charney has a winner of a claim, as I read his post.

House Passes Minimum Wage Increase

The newly Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill that would increase the federal minimum wage in three steps over 26 months to $7.25/hour. The bill must still be approved by the Senate and signed by the President before it can become law. (Remember, "I'm just a bill . . ."?), but this looks like it may result in the first hike in the federal minimum wage in nearly 10 years.

As always, business interests are concerned about the impact this will have on labor costs, especially for small "mom and pop" operations.

Age and The Apprentice

Lest you think the topics we cover in this course have nothing to do with the real world . . . .

Well, they may have nothing to do with "The Real World" (thank goodness), but the world of reality TV is not untouched by employment law travails. To wit, Donald Trump (and a number of other folks and companies associated with the show) has been sued for age discrimination by a rejected applicant to be his Apprentice.

As if Donald didn't have his hands full dealing with Rosie . . . .

Ironic Discrimination

While this post won't be the most substantive we'll have on this site, I couldn't help but note that Mother's Work, Inc., which owns the Motherhood Maternity stores you see in the mall, has recently settled a discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The basis for the lawsuit? You guessed it: pregnancy discrimination.

Not only will the company pay $345,000 in damages, but it has to deal with the publicity of allegedly discriminating against it's core consumers.

It's 2007 and We're Back

Work/Life/Law is back for another go 'round.

Stay tuned for a new series of posts from Professor Prenkert and his students in the employment law and policy seminar.

A reminder of our purpose and goals:

This blog will use, as a jumping-off point, a variety of laws and legal regimes that target and regulate work and the workplace in order to explore how life, work, and law interact and, more specifically, to analyze some important policy issues that affect how we live, by affecting how we work.

We'll highlight articles in the mainstream media, comment on relevant posts by other bloggers, and provide some original content flowing from our class readings and discussions.

While this blog is intended primarily to be an extension of the seminar for the class participants, we welcome the thoughtful and respectful contributions** of anyone who is interested in the topics we pursue.

**NOTE: For the time being, we are happy to permit comments from readers who are not members of our class. However, this is not a public forum and the administrator of this blog will exercise the right to close comments to non-members and/or delete unhelpful, off-topic, and intemperate or disrespectful comments without notice and subject only to his reasoned judgment. Non-anonymous comments are appreciated and will be less likely to fall prey to arbitrary and capricious deletion.