Connecticut Employment Law Blog Insight on Labor & Employment Developments for Connecticut Businesses

What I’m Reading This Week — “So Much to Say” About Employment Law and HR Developments

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Litigation

With iPods becoming ubiquitous, I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels like they are listening to more music in general.  A favorite song of mine is "So Much to Say" by the Dave Matthews Band song.  (Don’t try reading too much into the lyricsPublic Domain — there isn’t much there.)  But this week, "So Much to Say" seems an appropriate label for all the great articles relating to labor & employment law.  There’s "Too Much" to write about individually, but here are a few of the posts that warrant a mention for one reason or another.  

  • Kris Dunn, over at HR Capitalist, has a thought provoking post this morning about whether the paying of staff by Jay Leno is a good or bad thing for the union in the writers strike. The comments, including by yours truly, show that this is no ordinary strike. 
  • George Lenard, over at George’s Employment Blawg, has a great post today about asking whether today’s job applicants are dumber.  He reports that "A recent press release from Wonderlic, Inc., reporting on a new study of company data, says applicants today aren’t as smart (lower cognitive ability) as similarly-educated applicants of yesteryear."
  • Paul Secunda, at the Workplace Prof blog posted a thorough analysis of the transcript of the oral argument in the Supreme Court case yesterday (you can find the transcript here). In that ADEA case, one of the issues presented is whether a plaintiff-employee can present evidence of other employees who also claim that they were discriminated against.  It remains to be seen where this case will come out.

    Ultimately, Paul concludes:

I see this case coming out 5-4 in favor of Sprint. A majority opinion by Justice Scalia (joined by Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts) saying that the district court should be deferred to in admitting evidence absent an abuse of discretion. Look for the court to also point out that allowing this evidence in would lead to mini-trials on other supervisor statements and so in most cases, this evidence is appropriately excludable under Rule 403. Justice Scalia may also try to get in that he thinks this case rises and falls on Rule 401, but I don’t think he has a majority on that point.