|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link NFL Players' Minnesota Drug Testing Claims Not Preempted by Federal Law, Eighth Circuit Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 24, 2009 The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis, has ruled that Minnesota drug testing and consumable products laws are not preempted by Section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), allowing the claims of two players for the Minnesota Vikings to proceed to trial in Minnesota state court. Williams v. National Football League, et al., No. 09-2247/2462 (8th Cir. Sept. 11, 2009). The Court further ruled that the players’ related common law tort claims were preempted by the LMRA. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the players’ common law claims was affirmed, and the statutory claims were remanded to Minnesota state court for further proceedings. Report Link Minnesota Law Applies to Union-Negotiated Drug Testing Policies, Says Eighth Circuit.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - September 23, 2009 Minnesota drug testing laws and other statutes apply to a drug testing policy negotiated between a union and a unionized employer according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Williams v. National Football League (8th Cir. Sept. 11, 2009). In Williams, the NFL unsuccessfully argued that claims under the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA)1 and the Minnesota Lawful Consumable Products Act (CPA)2 are preempted by federal labor law. The case highlights that organized employers must consult state workplace drug testing laws—along with any other potentially applicable statutes—when negotiating testing policies. Report Link Federal Labor Law Pre-empts California's Prohibition on Use of State Funds to Promote or Deter Organizing.Ford & Harrison LLP - July 07, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a California law that prohibits employers who receive state funds from using those funds to "assist, promote, or deter union organizing" is pre-empted by federal labor law. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Overturns California's Limitation on Employer Free Speech Rights to Resist Union Organizing.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 27, 2008 On June 19, 2008, in a widely anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled in a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Stevens that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) "unequivocally pre-empted" California's "union neutrality" law, which prohibited employers who accept state funds from using those funds to deter union organizing. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. 06-939 (June 19, 2008). This decision is welcome news for many employers who do business in California and were faced with the burdensome accounting task of separating state-provided funds from other funds in order to counter union organizing attempts. The decision also provides assurance to employers doing business in other states that have contemplated adopting a law similar to California's. Report Link Supreme Court Holds that NLRA Preempts California Neutrality Law.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - June 26, 2008 Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempted a California law that required employers who received state funds to remain neutral in regard to union representation. In Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. 06-939 (June 19, 2008), the court held that an employer's right to engage in a debate over issues concerning union representation is a fundamental policy embodied in this country's national labor relations laws and that a state cannot interfere with it. Report Link Federal Labor Law Pre-empts California’s Prohibition on Use of State Funds to Promote or Deter Organizing.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 24, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a California law that prohibits employers who receive state funds from using those funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing” is pre-empted by federal labor law. Report Link Supreme Court Strikes Down California's Union Neutrality Law.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 23, 2008 Agreeing with the position taken by Jackson Lewis before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that key provisions of California’s so-called labor relations neutrality statute run afoul of federal labor law and are unenforceable. The ruling emphasizes that robust debate on issues concerning union representation is a fundamental policy embodied in our national labor law and that a state statute cannot interfere with it. Report Link Supreme Court Strikes Down California Labor Law.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 20, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a substantial victory for those employers who choose to take efforts to fend off union campaigns at their workplaces. In a 7 to 2 decision, the Court found that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts a California law that prohibits certain employers from using State funds to assist or deter unionization efforts by their employees. A contrary decision could have opened the door for other states to utilize their spending and regulatory power to restrict employer free-speech rights during union organizing campaigns. Report Link Supreme Court Ponders Whether to Invalidate California's Union Neutrality Law.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 08, 2008 The Supreme Court has taken under advisement a case which may have a profound effect on labor relations throughout the United States, as a number of state legislatures and state houses, beholden to political allies in organized labor, seek to use their power of the purse in dispensing funds to private employers, especially those in healthcare, to sidestep the neutrality mandate of federal labor relations law so as to foster union organizing. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. 06-939 (U.S. Nov. 20, 2007). The law under consideration was enacted by the California state legislature to prohibit employers from using state funds to "assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” Cal. Govt. Code § 16645(a). Report Link California Court of Appeal Finds Employee’s Claims Preempted by National Labor Relations Act.Ford & Harrison LLP - February 21, 2008 In Luke v. Collotype Labels USA, Inc. (2/14/08), the California Court of Appeal held that an ex-employee’s claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting judgment in favor of the employer. Report Link Ninth Circuit Upholds Union Neutrality Law.Ford & Harrison LLP - October 09, 2006 The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a California law that prohibits employers from using money received from the state to deter union organizing is not pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). See Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer (Sept. 21, 2006). The neutrality law, AB 1889 (found at California Government Code §§ 16645-16649) was enacted to express California’s policy to remain neutral with regard to union organizing. Report Link Importance of Employer Speech at Heart of Second Blow to California's Union Neutrality Legislation.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 15, 2005 Another decisive blow has been delivered to the California law that effectively mandates many employers in that state must remain neutral when faced with union organizing efforts. In its first order of business after the Labor Day holiday, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found the state law, Assembly Bill 1889, went too far in interfering with the exchange of speech and ideas during union organizing campaigns and is preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act. Report Link Federal Court Rules Illinois Strikebreaker Law Preempted by National Labor Relations Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 09, 2004 In May 2004, a federal court in Illinois sided with the employer in a lawsuit challenging the validity of the Illinois Employment of Strikebreakers Act. The court ruled that the IESA improperly intrudes upon the collective bargaining process and is therefore preempted by the NLRA.
|
ArticlesFound: 13 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds