Can a Judge in Criminal Cases Comment on Facebook?

A Texas court set a new low in September 2015 when it ruled that Judge Michelle Slaughter did not violate judicial ethics by posting judgmental comments about controversial defendants in her court on her Facebook page.

Before going further, let me say that I visited Judge Michelle Slaughter’s judicial Facebook page. If you click on her picture, you will see messages such as “The REAL Republican. The ONLY Conservative,” and another: “You crown the year with Your Goodness, and your paths drip with abundance- Psalm 65:11.”  

Now, for the case in which she was disciplined—and she won a reversal.

The Facts: The judge maintains a public Facebook which displays (1) her photo in a judicial robe, (2) photo of the Galveston County Courthouse; and (3) self-description as a “public figure” and as “Judge of the 405th Judicial District Court.” After her election to the bench, the judge was very active in posting comments about matters that were occurring in her court and in utilizing her Facebook page "as a means to educate the public about her court."

On April 28, 2014, a high profile, criminal jury trial was scheduled to begin in Judge Slaughter’s court. The case involved a man charged with unlawful restraint of a child for allegedly keeping a nine-year-old boy in a six-foot by eight-foot wooden enclosure inside the family home. The case became known in the media as “the Boy in the Box” case.

A couple of days before the trial was set to begin, the Respondent posted the following on her Facebook page, “We have a big criminal trial starting Monday! Jury selection Monday and opening statements Tues. morning.” The following day, in response to the above-described post, a person posted the following comment on her Facebook page, “One of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies is ‘Hang 'Em High,’ jus sayin your honor ...” She took down the comment but not before defense attorneys saw it and moved to recuse her (she declined).

The Texas Judicial Commission issued the judge an admonition, and she contested the discipline. She prevailed on appeal. The Special Court of Review concluded:

Our review of the Canons does not indicate any express requirement for judges to patrol their social media websites to either delete or disavow any comments made by others. We are reluctant to impose a requirement of this type in the absence of an express requirement in the Canons.

A Right to Do Versus Doing What Is Right

The double-dipping virus for judges has appeared in New York, too, where State Supreme Court Justice Brian DeJoseph “retired” on December 31, 2014 and began a new term of office on January 1, 2015.  Judge DeJoseph’s election to a new term in November 2014, as well as a loophole in New York’s retirement law, enabled the judge to bank an estimated $112,000 a year in pension benefits while earning $183,300 as a judge.

To wit: “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.” Justice Potter Stewart

Judicial Intrigue: Better than TV

Nevada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Nancy Saitta abruptly announced that she is retiring in August. Here is why, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal: 

Saitta was friends with a Vegas lawyer, Nancy Quon, whose law firm specialized in suing builders for construction defects. Quon was under investigation for rigging homeowner association elections across Vegas in order to get their business, and increase her leverage in suing these builders. The FBI looked into this. 

Allegedly, Chief Justice Saitta caught wind of the sting operation and tipped off her friend. Quon killed herself a short time later. To date more than 40 people have pled guilty to fraud and corruption charges.

Saitta is implicated another way. Before her election to the highest court, she presided over construction defect cases while she was a Clark County District Court judge.

Nancy Saitta has been a statewide leader for legal issues that affect children. 

Halftime Score: Teachers Have Lead Over Billionaire Fund Managers

Don’t underestimate the power of teachers and their unions. First, teachers have over $1 trillion invested in various pension funds. They hire savvy firms to maximize returns.

That has changed as politically-motivated fund managers have take strong stands against their client-unions.  As the Wall Street Journal reports, investment gurus such as Daniel Loeb, Paul Singer and dozens of other hedge-fund managers have poured millions of dollars into promoting charter schools in New York City and into groups that want to revamp pension plans for government workers, including teachers.

Now, Randi Weingarten, leader of the American Federation of Teachers, is fighting back—and she is playing hardball. 

First, her union is pulling large investments from these politically-motivated fund managers. But that’s just the start.

Her union federation is funding a lobbying campaign to eliminate the “carried-interest” tax rate on investment income earned by many money managers. If that passes, it'll hit Wall Street investment firms in their personal pocketbooks.

The union has also filed a class-action lawsuit accusing 25 Wall Street firms of violating antitrust law and manipulating Treasury bond prices.

Want to See Required Economic Disclosures of Illinois Judges? Good Luck with That!

Here is my current research dilemma. In working on a project about judicial ethics in Illinois, I believe (but don’t know for sure) that Judge Michael McCuskey is double-dipping as a retiree at full-pay while also accepting a salary as a full-time judge. Judge McCuskey, now an Illinois circuit court judge, took his post after he retired from his federal judgeship. Upon retirement from the federal government, he appeared to become eligible by statute for a full-salary pension at close to $200,000 per year.  He quickly returned to the bench— changing federal robes for state robes—where he earned $190,758 according to a recent salary survey. My hunch is that he is drawing about $400,000 from taxpayers. Nothing in the Judicial Code addresses this, and therefore, the arrangement— if it is double-dipping— is not a violation of judicial ethics.

But in this age of constrained taxpayer resources, it’s fair to know this.

The Judicial Code makes it difficult, in fact, for the public to find this information. Rule 68 requires judges to make a declaration of economic interests. By administrative order (Rule 1), current economic interests specifically includes a “pension plan.” But the information is not available online—indeed, one must personally travel to Springfield or Chicago to inspect the filing, and further, “[e]ach person requesting examination of a statement or portion thereof must first fill out a form prepared by the Director specifying the statement requested, identifying the examiner by name, occupation, address and telephone number, and listing the date of the request and the reason for such request.” How’s that for a chilling effect! (If I go to Springfield for this, I promise to drive exactly or under the speed limit.)

Will Native Americans Vote Republican? A Tale of Labor Law

No, this question is not a joke. Native American casinos generated $28.5 billion in 2014 revenues. A growing number of casino workers have chosen unions to bargain for them. The legal question is whether the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction in the employment relationship, or whether casinos are exempt due to tribal sovereignty.

As reported by Robert Iafolla (Reuters Law), in 2015 the 6th Circuit ruled that the NLRB could order a casino owned and operated by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan to reinstate a housekeeper who was fired for soliciting union support. A second appellate decision also ruled in favor of the NLRB and employees.

Today, the Supreme Court denied the tribes’ petition to review these rulings. Now, the only way to undo these rulings is to seek legislation from a Republican controlled Senate and House. 

Illinois Judges Make More in Retirement than on the Bench

What do Illinois judges and legislators have in common? Gold-plated retirements. A recent analysis by Jake Griffin at the Daily Herald shows that nearly 40 percent of the state’s 789 retired judges make more money in retirement than when they sat on the bench. The average annual judicial pension in 2015 was $132,426, according to the analysis. Most Illinois government employees must work 40 years to achieve the maximum pension, pegged at 75% of best salary. Not so for judges, who top out at 85% in 20 years. 

Bad Odor! Check Illinois Judges

Illinois’ system of partisan elections for judges has greased the way for ethical abuses. 

Recently, three judges in St. Clair County who are up for retention elections chose, instead, to retire and file as candidates in the general election.  By doing so, they will avoid the 60% retention requirement and need to win just one more vote than their opponents for another (um, I mean new) term. Underscoring the growing politicization of Illinois judges, Judge Baricevic said that running in the general election will allow him to speak out more about issues that affect the judiciary. 

His real motivation, however, appears to be less noble: In his 2010 retention election, Judge Barisevic squeaked by with a 62.49% yes vote. Give the judge credit for lying like a regular politician. In 2006, St. Clair County Judge Lloyd Cueto also retired in order to run in the 2006 general election, which he won.

Judge Michael McCuskey, now an Illinois circuit court judge, retired from his post as a federal district judge. After he retired from a federal judgeship, he became eligible by statute for a full-salary pension at close to $200,000 per year.  He quickly returned to the bench— changing federal robes for state robes—where he earned $190,758 according to a recent salary survey.  While his personal financial records are not subject to public disclosure, this arrangement gives the appearance of an expensive form of double-dipping at the expense of Illinoisans who pay him twice in their federal and state taxes.

Gov. Rauner— the anti-corruption knight who wants squeaky clean government— named U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert to Southern Illinois University’s Board of Trustees in February 2015. A few months before, Judge Gilbert ruled in favor of SIU in a disability case by a student who challenged his dismissal from SIU. If this type of political payback sounds like something that Speaker Madigan would cook up, you’re with me.

Judge/Trustee Gilbert asked the SIU board to insulate him from all legal issues by allowing him to leave the room when trustees evaluated those issues. His bosses at the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t buy that flimsy form of self-imposed regulation. Judge Dianne Wood ruled that service on a public university’s board is incompatible with a judicial canon that severely limits civic participation by judges due to perceived or real conflicts of interest.

Origins of Right to Bear Arms (Interesting for Today)

The Constitutional Convention came about because America’s first government, the Articles of Confederation, made for a weak and quarrelsome group of jealous and competing states (see EU today for equivalent). The new government was conceived by elites who wanted a strong central government. A group of dissidents in Pennsylvania felt shut out of the process, complaining that “during the discussion we met with many insults, and some personal abuse; we were not even treated with decency.” 

They proposed a series of personal liberties, which later were adopted as our Bill of Rights. Here was their idea about the right to bear arms:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

How Long Can an Alien Be Detained? The Supreme Court Will Decide

Whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is elected president, we can expect the current trend of record-high levels of deportations to continue. At present, about 400,000 people are detained and processed for deportation. The process is seriously backlogged.

The ACLU sued several years ago to require that courts hold a bond hearing for people who face lengthy detentions. A lower court agreed, and ruled that the U.S. government must hold a bond hearing if a detainee is held for more than six months. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, however.

There are three types of detainees caught up in this dramatic action.

1.      People caught making an illegal entry to the U.S. at or near a border.

2.      Lawful permanent residents (Green Card holders) who are convicted of crimes.

3.      Undocumented workers caught in enforcement sweeps.

If Trump is elected and follows through on his campaign promise to deport 11 million unlawful aliens, it will take many years for the courts to process these cases (unless President Trump declares the equivalent of martial law and suspends the Constitution).

The high court will hear oral arguments and decide the case during its next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2017.

And consider this factor: In the current term, which ends in two weeks, the Supreme Court will decide whether to reinstate President Obama’s 2014 executive action to shield millions of immigrants in the country illegally from deportation. The plan was blocked by lower courts.

How E-Commerce Lowers Pay … and Leads to Unions

Fragrance workers are among the leading group of newly organized workers. Not exactly the folks who toil in coal mines and auto factories. But why? It starts with Amazon’s amazingly generous return policy for merchandise. To compete, Macy’s, Nordstroms and others have matched or exceeded these policies. Want to return a fragrance bottle at Macy’s? You have up to a year, even if the bottle is heavily used. Nordstrom has no time limit-- just bring back your mostly used bottle for a full refund. Fragrance workers sell on commission. Now, they are finding their pay is deducted for up to a year after they make a sale. Now that’s a recipe for angering workers and facilitating a successful organizing campaign.

Unsafe Nursing Homes and Unfair Labor Practices

On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Labor Relations Board can order an employer to reimburse a union’s bargaining expenses to remedy an unfair labor practice, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

The case comes from Illinois (the NLRB is based in Washington D.C.). Camelot Terrace Inc. and Galesburg Terrace Inc, two Illinois nursing homes, were found to have bargained in bad faith.

The panel of judges (Karen Henderson (Bush I appointee), Judith Rogers (Clinton appointee) and Stephen Williams (Reagan appointee) explained that an award of bargaining expenses allows an injured party to return to the negotiating table on the same footing it had prior to an unfair labor practice. Furthermore: “A more traditional remedy, such as a bargaining order, is of little value if one party can drain another of its resources by bargaining in bad faith and then extracting concessions as the money wanes,” Henderson wrote for the panel.

During the time that the nursing home company bargained in bad faith with the union, news reports indicate that owners tried to persuade State of Illinois health inspectors to change reports and a citation finding that residents were in “immediate jeopardy” because of the presence of mold and termites. Later, it should be noted, the nursing home addressed the issues and received a positive rating. More here.

As Gov. Rauner tries to oust labor unions, and Speaker Madigan remains unamenable to passing a credible budget, the Illinois Department of Public Health— the agency that ensures patient safety at nursing homes-- is not funded with an appropriation.

Employers Use More “Muzzle” Agreements

This is not about an employer and employee who have a messy dispute that is heading for court, and the employer settles the claim by including a non-disparagement clause.

What’s going on? More employers are requiring employees to sign non-disparagement clauses in order to receive severance benefits.

This seems to be especially prevalent where technology workers are laid-off and say they are being replaced with workers who hold a three year visa, called H-1B.

It’s worth noting that 94% of private-sector workplaces in the U.S. are not union-represented. In other words, there is no organization to voice worker concerns.

Now, the individual’s voice is being silenced.

More on Why Political Judges Are Bad: The Case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore

Alabama’s Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore (pictured), was removed from office earlier this year, and is under investigation for violating judicial ethics that bar judges from engaging in political conduct. 

The Chief Justice was removed from office because he ordered all Alabama judicial officers to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling that recognizes the constitutional right of gay and lesbian adults to marry each other.

On Thursday, Moore and his backers lost another ruling before U.S. District Judge Callie V. Granade, who wrote this on Tuesday:

“Given the actions by Alabama state and local officials during this litigation, both before and after the Supreme Court decided Obergefell (the national same-sex marriage case), it cannot be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that Alabama’s unconstitutional marriage laws will not again be enforced.”

Granade issued a permanent injunction Tuesday that prevents Alabama officials from enforcing laws against same-sex unions. The rulings—which applies to all of Alabama’s judicial officers, including probate judges and officials who control marriage licenses— are barred from standing in the way of marriage equality.

Matoaka: The Real Pocahantas (By Chief Roy Crazy Horse, Powhatan Nation)

Donald Trump rallied supporters yesterday with this verbal assault against Sen. Warren: “Pocahontas is at it again!”

Here, then, is the historical account of Matoaka—the woman who is the story behind the false legend of Pocahantas (quoting below without alternation):

In 1995, Roy Disney decided to release an animated movie about a Powhatan woman known as "Pocahontas". In answer to a complaint by the Powhatan Nation, he claims the film is "responsible, accurate, and respectful."

We of the Powhatan Nation disagree. The film distorts history beyond recognition. Our offers to assist Disney with cultural and historical accuracy were rejected. Our efforts urging him to reconsider his misguided mission were spurred.

"Pocahontas" was a nickname, meaning "the naughty one" or "spoiled child". Her real name was Matoaka. The legend is that she saved a heroic John Smith from being clubbed to death by her father in 1607 - she would have been about 10 or 11 at the time. The truth is that Smith's fellow colonists described him as an abrasive, ambitious, self-promoting mercenary soldier.

Of all of Powhatan's children, only "Pocahontas" is known, primarily because she became the hero of Euro-Americans as the "good Indian", one who saved the life of a white man. Not only is the "good Indian/bad Indian theme" inevitably given new life by Disney, but the history, as recorded by the English themselves, is badly falsified in the name of "entertainment".

The truth of the matter is that the first time John Smith told the story about this rescue was 17 years after it happened, and it was but one of three reported by the pretentious Smith that he was saved from death by a prominent woman.

Yet in an account Smith wrote after his winter stay with Powhatan's people, he never mentioned such an incident. In fact, the starving adventurer reported he had been kept comfortable and treated in a friendly fashion as an honored guest of Powhatan and Powhatan's brothers. Most scholars think the "Pocahontas incident" would have been highly unlikely, especially since it was part of a longer account used as justification to wage war on Powhatan's Nation.

Euro-Americans must ask themselves why it has been so important to elevate Smith's fibbing to status as a national myth worthy of being recycled again by Disney. Disney even improves upon it by changing Pocahontas from a little girl into a young woman.

The true Pocahontas story has a sad ending. In 1612, at the age of 17, Pocahontas was treacherously taken prisoner by the English while she was on a social visit, and was held hostage at Jamestown for over a year.

During her captivity, a 28-year-old widower named John Rolfe took a "special interest" in the attractive young prisoner. As a condition of her release, she agreed to marry Rolfe, who the world can thank for commercializing tobacco. Thus, in April 1614, Matoaka, also known as "Pocahontas", daughter of Chief Powhatan, became "Rebecca Rolfe". Shortly after, they had a son, whom they named Thomas Rolfe. The descendants of Pocahontas and John Rolfe were known as the "Red Rolfes."

 Two years later on the spring of 1616, Rolfe took her to England where the Virginia Company of London used her in their propaganda campaign to support the colony. She was wined and dined and taken to theaters. It was recorded that on one occasion when she encountered John Smith (who was also in London at the time), she was so furious with him that she turned her back to him, hid her face, and went off by herself for several hours. Later, in a second encounter, she called him a liar and showed him the door.

Rolfe, his young wife, and their son set off for Virginia in March of 1617, but "Rebecca" had to be taken off the ship at Gravesend. She died there on March 21, 1617, at the age of 21. She was buried at Gravesend, but the grave was destroyed in a reconstruction of the church. It was only after her death and her fame in London society that Smith found it convenient to invent the yarn that she had rescued him.

History tells the rest. Chief Powhatan died the following spring of 1618. The people of Smith and Rolfe turned upon the people who had shared their resources with them and had shown them friendship. During Pocahontas' generation, Powhatan's people were decimated and dispersed and their lands were taken over. A clear pattern had been set which would soon spread across the American continent.

Chief Roy Crazy Horse

Employees and the Right to Be Seated

Anyone who works a job that requires long stretches of standing knows that lower back pain and leg cramps are common health-effects. Now comes this path-breaking ruling from the Ninth Circuit, the most pro-worker federal appeals court in the U.S. A panel of judges has cleared the way for employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc, CVS Pharmacy Inc and JPMorgan Chase Bank to proceed with lawsuits claiming the retail and banking giants violated state law by not providing them with seating. The jobs in question involve cashiering functions.

This follows a ruling from the California Supreme Court in April, ruling the same way for employees at CVS and JPMorgan. A state regulation requires employers to provide seating "when the nature of the work reasonably permits" applies to most workers, even those who spend most of their shift on their feet.

Unions used to bargain working conditions. Now, they represent less than 6% of the private sector. That won’t stop them from seeking better pay and working conditions. Expect more of these court rulings.

The Skinny on Why the Jimmy John's Lawsuit Matters

The Illinois Attorney General has sued Jimmy John's because of its no-compete clauses that bar employees from working for other sandwich makers in the area for two years. Here’s why this matters.

1.       No-competes deter people from accepting offers for higher wages from competitors. Jimmy John's is using its muscle to keep its wages as low as possible.

2.       No-competes used to be limited to highly skilled professions and crafts—e.g., physicians, lawyers, high-level consultants, etc. Now, many employers use this as a way to keep a lid on rival employers hiring their talent—e.g., Google, Apple, and related recently were exchanging emails of all things!) promising not to hire each other’s talent.

3.       The law severely frowns on no-competes. Here is the history, as recounted in KGB v. Giannaoulis: “This hostility first judicially appears in the reign of Henry V in 1415, when a guild sought to restrain a dyer from working in a town for half a year, enraging the judge, who “in bad French...cursed the deal void: 'By God, if the plaintiff were here he should go to prison until he paid a fine to the king.”' Id. at p. 691.) Since then the courts have become more temperate, and will sometimes enforce such covenants at least in states not having statutes like section 16600, if such enforcement is reasonable; but even in those states, reasonableness is not lightly decreed, and always, the burden rests on the person seeking such a restraint to justify it.

Gov. Rauner Loses New Union Fee Case

In Harris v. Quinn (2014), the Supreme Court struck down mandatory union fee for private home-health workers, including employees who are paid wages by a state subsidy. This was a big win for opponents of unions.

An anti-union group, Right to Work Foundation, filed a follow-up lawsuit in Riffey et al. v. Rauner et al., case number 1:10-cv-02477, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The decision is here. 

In the new lawsuit, union-fee challengers seek $32 million in fees taken by the union from 80,000 home health care workers since 2008.

Notice that Gov. Rauner is a defendant, along with the union (SEIU). But this is a case he wants to lose in order to withhold or collect money from the union.

The problem, according to federal judge Manish Shah, is that 65% of the workers have voluntarily joined the union and consented to pay dues. The lawsuit seeks refunds for this 65% class, and the other 35%. The union has stopped collecting dues from the non-members, but refuses to refund dues for the period 2008-2014.

On June 7th, Judge Shah dismissed a motion to allow the non-members to represent the entire class. 

The judge explained that the plaintiffs do not meet the legal definition of “typicality”— in other words, the minority-plaintiffs cannot use a class action to impose their will on the majority. 

Today’s Legal Playoff Game: Stupid v. Asinine

You decide which legal story “wins” today’s honors.

Stupid: Pennsylvania Attorney General is Kathleen Kane. The state's top court has suspended her law license while she fights criminal charges that she had leaked confidential information to a newspaper reporter about an investigation into her predecessor. Thus, she now oversees a team of lawyers who represent the state while she is prohibited from practicing law herself.

But, wait—it gets more stupid. Kane has a twin sister, who works in the same office as a Deputy Attorney General. Ellen Granahan, the twin sister, has sued Kathleen for gender discrimination claiming she was paid less than her male counterparts.

Assisnine: The Stanford Rape Case. Like the Pennsylvania matter, it has its own internal contest for asinine. Swim team member Brock Turner was convicted of raping an unconscious woman. Turner’s father pleaded for leniency from the court, saying his son had already paid a steep price for “20 minutes of action.” The judge bought the argument, and sentenced Turner to six months in prison. It’s no surprise that Turner is Caucasian and was a student at an elite, private university. 

Judge Persky was a Stanford lacrosse player today, fueling speculation about his or his teammates conduct in the 1980s.

Code for Attacking Jews: Three Brackets-- How Some Trump Supporters Threaten Jews

The BBC reports that Google is adding a plug-in that bans Internet users from picking out Jews. 

The story? “Google has banned an extension of its Chrome browser which was being used to identify Jewish names on the internet by surrounding them with three sets of brackets, or parentheses. Those identified were then subjected to anti-semitic abuse via social media. The symbol has been described as a secret signal because punctuation does not show up in ordinary web searches. Google said that the extension was blocked from its store because it broke its hate speech rules.”

How does this work? “The extension was developed by a far-right group called alt-right. It had around 2,500 users and a database of 8,800 common Jewish names which it could pick out on websites reported tech site Mic. The symbol stems from a right-wing group called the Right Stuff, who told Mic it was ‘a critique of Jewish power.’”

Was there a victim? “Jonathan Weisman, deputy Washington editor of the New York Times, wrote about his experience of receiving a tweet with his name wrapped around with brackets. When he asked what it meant the tweeter replied that he was "belling the cat." "The anti-Semitic hate hasn't stopped since," wrote Mr. Weisman, who has now altered his name on Twitter to include the brackets himself. Others are doing the same in support. "Nobody's telling us to self-identify. We are showing strength and fearlessness," he tweeted in response to a journalist who said it made her uncomfortable. He also said that much of the hate appeared to come with "self-identified Donald J Trump supporters" - and many had Twitter names which included the US presidential candidate's name.

Do Illinois Taxpayers Pay Twice for “Gutless” Judge?

Recently, a sitting judge, while on a local radio show, called UIUC leaders “gutless” for their mild rebuke of student protesters who disrupted Gov. Rauner’s campus speech. After serving as a federal district judge in Illinois from 1998 to 2014, he retired. According to 28 U.S. Code § 371 (Retirement on salary; retirement in senior status), this entitled him to retirement pay “equal to the salary he was receiving at the time he retired.” In 2014, this salary amount was slightly less than $200,000 per year. Presumably, part or much of this pension is funded by taxpayers.

According to Wikipedia, “He was appointed to the Illinois Tenth Judicial Circuit, his original seat, taking office on June 3, 2014.... [The judge] stated his intention to run for election in November 2016.” According to an official website, he remains listed as a “resident judge.” 

If true, this suggests that this state judge earns about $190,758 per year, on top of nearly $200,000 in federal pension money. It’s possible that the federal plan offsets the judicial annuity by new earnings, and it’s also possible that the judge declines to accept pension pay from the federal government. But maybe not. If he collects from both sources, this judge isn’t gutless—to the contrary, he has guts. 

You Decide: Are Illinois Judges Overpaid?

Trial judges in Illinois earn $190,758—ranking them 3^rd in the nation for pay. Appellate judges earn $207,882, ranking them 2^nd in the U.S., while Illinois Supreme Court Justices earn $220,873—again 2^nd in the nation. Click on interactive map to verify.  Also, click here.

By comparison, Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court-- who live in Washington D.C.-- earn $213,900. 

How does Illinois set these salaries? Starting in 1984—one year after Michael Madigan became Speaker of the Illinois House— Illinois uses a 12-member commission. How are members chosen? Three are appointed by speaker of the house, 3 by house minority leader, 3 by president of senate, and 3 by minority leader of senate. Their recommendations become law unless disapproved by the General Assembly within 30 days. See here to verify.

Suppose You Resign Because of Intolerable Discrimination: Supreme Court Rules on When Does the Clock Starts on a Constructive Discharge Case

Hopefully, no reader of ProfLERoy will ever feel compelled to quit due to discrimination. But just in case—or if you administer HR policies— here is an update on the Supreme Court’s ruling last week.

First, let me use a short hypothetical to explain this. Suppose that a Trump-inspired supervisor (or worse, more senior manager) feels emboldened to make derogatory remarks about Mexicans and Muslims. You’re neither Mexican nor Muslim but you reach the point where you can’t tolerate these conditions. Point 1: You’re protected under Title VII, even if “your group” isn’t implicated.

Now, let’s say you take leave or vacation time to think about whether you can work for this jerk. 

Some courts would start the 45-day clock for an employee to contact the EEOC at the time of the last discriminatory act. Courts that took that approach effectively knocked out the employee’s claim of discrimination.

In Green v. Brennan, the Supreme Court ruled against this approach: the clock starts on the day the employee actually quits.

I think the Court got it right here, with a common sense ruling.

For readers who want more, here is a good explanation from Christina McDonald in The National Law Review.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Resignation Triggers Limitations Period for Constructive Discharge Claims

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

The United States Supreme Court resolved a split among appellate circuits about when an employee must take action to pursue a constructive discharge claim. The Court held that the 45-day limitation period for a federal civil servant to contact an EEOC counselor for a constructive discharge claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 begins to run when the employee gives notice of his resignation, and not on the date of the employer’s last alleged discriminatory act. The Court’s decision in Green v. Brennan foreshadows how courts will likely treat the timeliness of filing constructive discharge claims in both the private and public sectors.

The Facts

Marvin Green worked for the U.S. Postal Service for 35 years. The last position he held was as postmaster for a Denver, Colorado suburb. He applied for a promotion for a vacant postmaster job in Boulder, but he was passed over. Shortly thereafter, Green complained that he was denied the promotion because of his race. His supervisors accused him of intentionally delaying the mail – a criminal act – and continually threatened Green. Finally, Green and the Postal Service signed an agreement wherein the Postal Service promised not to pursue criminal charges in exchange for Green’s promise to resign, retire, or take a position in Wamsutter, Wyoming (population 451) for significantly less pay. Green chose to resign. Forty-one days after he submitted his resignation paperwork, which was 96 days after he signed the settlement agreement, Green contacted an EEOC counselor to report an unlawful constructive discharge.

Before a federal employee can sue his employer for violating Title VII, he must contact an EEOC counselor “within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory.” The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the “matter alleged to be discriminatory” encompassed only the Postal Service’s discriminatory actions and not Green’s decision to resign; therefore, the 45-day period started running when the parties signed the settlement agreement and Green’s EEOC contact was untimely.

The Holding

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the “matter alleged to be discriminatory” includes the employees’ resignation so that the 45-day clock for constructive discharge begins running only after the employee resigns. The Court specifically noted that the 45-day regulation, though applicable to federal employees only, “has a statutory analog for private-sector Title VII plaintiffs, who are required to file a charge with the EEOC within 180 or 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred…Although the language is different, the EEOC treats the federal and private-sector employee limitations periods as identical in operation.” Notice of the resignation, and not the resignation itself, triggers the limitations period to start running (i.e. “If an employee gives ‘two weeks’ notice…the limitations period begins to run on the day he tells his employer, not his last day at work”).

Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, employers who pursue a statute of limitations defense of a constructive discharge claim must calculate the employee’s deadline to file an EEOC charge from the date the employee gives notice of his or her resignation, even if the last alleged discriminatory act occurred before the employee submits the notice.

Keeping Women Off the Road: Uber Gets $3.5 Billion from Saudi Arabia

A Saudi Arabian sovereign fund has invested $3.5 billion in Uber, resulting in a seat for Yasir Al Rumayyan on Uber’s board. Saudi Arabia sees this as a good investment to expand its urban mobility. But if the following info in Forbes is meant as good PR, Uber and Al Rumayyan should think again: “Uber says that 4 out of 5 riders in Saudi Arabia are currently women who can’t otherwise drive on their own. ‘We’ve seen first-hand how this company has improved urban mobility around the world and we’re looking forward to being part of that progress,’” Al Rumayyan said in a statement.” Uber, how about declining money from a sovereign fund that is using you to perpetuate blatant sex discrimination?

Settled This Week: Mitsubishi’s WWII Slave Labor Case

Today’s news brings a fresh awareness of the horrors of war, as Mitsubishi Materials Corp. has formally settled claims by its Chinese slave workers. Former slaves— among more than 1,000 survivors from 39,000 war-slaves— report that the company has “sincerely” apologized. The Chinese victims also said that “no amount of money can make up for the loss of life and our trampled dignity.” They said they would continue seeking redress from the Japanese government. Thank you, Wall Street Journal, for today’s important story and this photo of a son honoring his father's memory.

Meaningful Work: It Matters

Today’s Wall Street Journal features Harriett Torry’s article, “How to Get Employees To Work Harder Without Paying Them More.” Here’s the skinny: “A new study walks through a solution to an age-old conundrum for employers: how to make employees work harder without paying them more. The answer is to give them meaningful work, according to research by economists Michael Kosfeld, Susanne Neckermann, and Xiaolan Yang published on the economics commentary website VoxEU. Or at least motivate staff to believe their work has meaning."

My colleagues at the School of Labor and Employment Relations investigate this issue, too. Here are three perspectives.

Prof. Teresa Cardador: “Research Interests: What makes work worth doing? Under what conditions do workers come to experience a sense of significance and purpose in their work? What role does personal and collective identity play in this process? These questions are fundamental to my program of research.

Grounded in theories of meaningful work, identity and identification, my research centers on how individuals make sense of, and experience meaningfulness in, the work that they do. I am particularly interested in the role that professions, occupations and organizations, as well as internalized orientations towards work (e.g., callings), play in the experience of meaningful work. I also examine how individuals construct meaning in relationship to helping others through their work. In examining these issues, I investigate the correlates and potential outcomes of meaningful work.”

Prof. Young-Ah Park: Research Interests: Work-nonwork life and work-nonwork boundary management; work stress and recovery from stress; workplace interpersonal mistreatments; and psychosocial resources for employee well-being and work.

The main goal of Park’s research is to enhance employee well-being, health, and work outcomes. Park studies psychological mechanisms of work stress and recovery from stress within various temporal frames (e.g., daily, weekly). Park is particularly interested in identifying psychosocial resources for employees to better manage work-non-work life demands, as well as to better cope with work stressors. Park also focuses on various contextual factors in jobs, dyadic relationships (e.g., dual-earner couples, supervisor-employee), and organizations.

Prof. Amit Kramer: Research Interests: Relationship between work, family and health; family-friendly policies in organizations and their effect on employee and employer’s outcomes; diversity and identity outcomes in teams and organizations. Kramer’s research focuses on the complex relationship between work/family demands and responsibilities and employees’ physical and psychological health and wellbeing. In addition, he studies family friendly policies and their relationship to employees and employers’ outcomes. Kramer also studies the role diversity and identity similarity play in team and individual outcomes. He is especially interested in studying the condition under which diversity is beneficial for team’s outcomes.