NELA & The Institute Mourn The Passing Of Justice Ginsburg
NELA and The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy are deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In her career as a litigator, Justice Ginsburg was a staunch advocate for gender equality, having broken numerous barriers throughout her career. As the second woman to serve on the High Court, she was a voice for many of the most vulnerable people in our society, and will continue to influence jurists far into the future. As Justice Elena Kagan observed, “She has changed the face of American anti-discrimination law.”
We mourn the loss of an icon and wish her family peace as they say goodbye to their loved one. Rest in peace, Justice Ginsberg. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with our nation and inspiring our continued commitment to justice.… Read More
Bias cases of JAMS arbitrator who shared racist email should undergo review, group says
Attys Ask JAMS For Bias Review After Judge’s Racist Email
NELA And The Institute Call On JAMS To Examine Past Cases For Bias
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. Christopher Poole
Chief Executive Officer, JAMS
5 Park Plaza Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92614
Re: Accountability for Racism at JAMS
Dear Mr. Poole:
The National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”) and its related charitable organization, The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy (“The Institute”) write to express deep concern about the racist views that were circulated by and then defended as a piece worthy of discussion by former Judge Richard Neville, who was until recently a JAMS neutral. NELA and our 69 circuit, state, and local Affiliates, comprising over 4,000 members across the country, are following your response with interest. We note, the communications only came to light as the result of a public filing, NRA v. JAMS.
The writing that Neville circulated, which he sent out by email using a signature block identifying him as a JAMS neutral, has rightly been described as “abhorrent” and “indecent.” We further agree that it is shocking that a former member of the judiciary would disseminate such material and, when called on it, defend it as being worthy of discussion or consideration, without any direct rejection of the content. It is beyond credible debate that the content … Read More
The National Employment Lawyers Association Calls On JAMS To Examine Past Cases For Bias
For Immediate Release
Contact: Andrea Hansen
509.306.1867
ahansen@flyingcrow.com
Arbitrator’s dissemination of racist content exposes the threat of concealed prejudice among “neutrals”
Washington, D.C. – September 8, 2020 – The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), the nation’s largest legal association whose members exclusively or primarily represent workers, and its related charitable arm The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy, are urging JAMS, a private dispute resolution provider, to conduct a full assessment of all discrimination cases overseen by Judge Richard Neville. Neville recently distributed via email to 39 recipients a racist essay contending the inferiority of Black Americans. He has since left JAMS.
As a JAMS neutral (arbitrator), Neville decided case outcomes, including employment discrimination cases, many of which are before JAMS instead of a court due to forced arbitration clauses imposed by employers on their employees. Now his neutrality on previous cases, particularly those related to discrimination or involving people of color, must be called into question due to his legitimizing of discriminatory beliefs. Neville’s willingness to share racist rhetoric with colleagues, including another JAMS neutral, under his JAMS email signature also raises concerns about whether the culture at the organization ignores or harbors racism.
While NELA and … Read More
Bafford v. Northrop Grumman, 9th Circuit
On August 10, 2020, NELA and the Pension Rights Center filed an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit case of Bafford v. Northrop Grumman. This case speaks to vitally important pleading standards in ERISA cases, which have a direct impact on whether workers will be guaranteed a fair retirement after a lifetime of hard work, and whether employers and outside pension administrators will be held to the high standards required for any fiduciary.
During the Plaintiffs’ employment at Northrop Grumman, both the company and their outside pension administrator provided Plaintiffs with pension statements, indicating how much each Plaintiff had accumulated in pension funds. In 2017, Defendants notified each Plaintiff that they would receive less than 50 percent of the pension amount that had been stated in pension statements. Further, Northrop Grumman went so far as to demand repayment of pension amounts already provided to Plaintiffs.
This amicus brief argues that the District Court incorrectly “faulted Plaintiffs for failing to allege, inter alia, that Northrop had a particular process in place for monitoring the Committee, failed to follow that process, [and] failed to ensure that the Committee had an adequate process in place for monitoring” the outside pension … Read More
Fulton v. Philadelphia, U.S. Supreme Court
On August 20, 2020, NELA joined The Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights and 27 other organizations in filing an amicus brief in Fulton v. Philadelphia in the U.S. Supreme Court. This brief urges “the Supreme Court to affirm and reiterate that private entities that receive taxpayer-funded government contracts must follow anti-discrimination provisions.” For years, courts have found that contractors who receive government funds are bound by anti-discrimination laws and conditions, regardless of the religious status of the organization. This includes anti-discrimination laws aimed to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The decision in this case could determine if the millions of workers who are employed by government contractors are protected from insidious discrimination in the name of religion. We are indebted to The Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights for drafting this brief.… Read More
The National Employment Lawyers Association Denounces Changes To EEOC Dispute Resolution Programs
Unilaterally rolled out by EEOC Chair, “pilot” projects hinder employee rights in discrimination cases
For Immediate Release
Contact: Andrea Hansen
509.306.1867
ahansen@flyingcrow.com
Washington, D.C. – August 17, 2020 – The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), the nation’s largest legal association whose members exclusively or primarily represent workers, today urged EEOC Chair Janet Dhillon to discontinue two pilot programs that limit the rights of those who suffer from workplace discrimination, such as sexual harassment or race discrimination.
The impacted programs – conciliation and mediation – are forms of dispute resolution intended to encourage settlement rather than litigation. Despite the EEOC’s mission to prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination, the proposed changes favor employers by limiting investigation, potentially hiding systemic discrimination on the part of a particular employer or industry, and weakening the employee’s ability to obtain relief from the discrimination and fair monetary damages.
While labeled “pilot” projects, with respect to the conciliation program the modifications were implemented nationwide, a departure from typical EEOC protocol. The pilots were executed unilaterally by Dhillon, without input from the other EEOC commissioners on the bipartisan commission. With respect to the changes in the mediation program, there is no plan to increase the number of … Read More
NELA Strongly Opposes Proposed Changes To EEOC Dispute Resolution Programs
Janet Dhillon, Chair
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Washington, DC
Via Email
RE: EEOC Conciliation and ADR Pilot Programs
Dear Chair Dhillon:
The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) respectfully writes to urge you to discontinue the Conciliation Pilot Project initiated on May 29, 2020 and the Mediation Pilot Project initiated on July 6, 2020 and to abandon the proposed changes to both the Conciliation and the Mediation programs at the EEOC. The changes contained in these pilots have profoundly limiting impact on the rights of working people who seek redress for workplace discrimination.
NELA is the largest professional membership organization in the country comprised of lawyers who represent workers in labor, employment, wage and hour, and civil rights disputes. NELA empowers workers’ rights attorneys through legal training, promoting a fair judiciary, and advocating for laws and policies that level the playing field for workers. NELA has filed numerous amicus curiae briefs before the United States Supreme Court and other federal appellate courts regarding the proper interpretation of federal civil rights and worker protection laws; provided comments on relevant Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) for federal agencies whose policies impact working people; and engages in legislative advocacy on behalf … Read More
Moses-EL v. Denver, 10th Circuit
On August 17, 2020, NELA and The Institute joined Public Justice and other disability and civil rights organizations in filing an amicus brief in Moses-EL v. Denver in the 10th Circuit. This brief addresses the vital importance of maintaining a Rule 8 pleading standard that does not raise barriers for entry to the courthouse for plaintiffs. In this case, the district court stiffened the already strict interpretation of Rule 8 established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. This heightened standard is in direct contravention to the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, requiring a level of specificity in the pleading that was unacceptably high. Courts have long recognized the importance of pleading standards that allow plaintiffs access to the discovery phase, even if their initial pleading lacks some factual specificity and is unsophisticated. Many thanks to Public Justice for drafting this brief.… Read More
Pambakian v. Blatt, 9th Circuit
On July 6, 2020, NELA and The Institute joined National Women’s Law Center and 45 other organizations in filing an amicus brief in Pambakian v. Blatt in the 9th Circuit. The amicus brief highlights the inherent problems surrounding forced arbitration, which denies workers access to justice and results in fewer claims, lower chances of recovery for plaintiffs, and lower recovery amounts. Even more importantly for workers who have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, arbitration requires secrecy from all parties, preventing survivors from speaking about their experiences and allowing corporations to protect abusers on their payroll. We are deeply grateful to National Women’s Law Center for leading the charge on this brief.… Read More
