Some Workers May Be Protected From Firing Despite Negative Facebook Comments

ABA Journal:  Some workers who beef about the workplace on Facebook and Twitter may be protected from firing or discipline because they are engaging in “protected concerted activity,” according to a report by the National Labor Relations Board.

The report by acting general counsel Lafe Solomon discusses the outcome of investigations into 14 cases involving social media by the agency’s Division of Advice, according to a press release, Above the Law, and Business Ethics. In four cases in the report (PDF), the NLRB found the workers were protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act because they were discussing terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees.

In one case the NLRB sided with a luxury car salesman fired for posting photos of a sales event in which hot dogs were served, cheap food he deemed to be conveying the wrong message to potential clients. His introduction to the photos remarked that he was happy to see that the employer had gone all out for the party. The NLRB said the salesman was vocalizing the concerns of his co-workers, whose salaries were based entirely on commissions.

Should The Legal Profession Be Deregulated?

Estate of Denial:  What do the New York Times, the Brookings Institution, and the Cato Institute have in common? Turns out we agree on deregulating the legal profession.

From a Times editorial: “Another step is to allow nonlawyers into the mix. The American Bar Association has insisted that only lawyers can provide legal services, but there are many things nonlawyers should be able to handle, like processing uncontested divorces. ”

From a Brookings op-ed: “It would be better to deregulate the provision of legal services. This would lower prices for clients and lead to more jobs.”

From a Cato paper: “Every state except Arizona prohibits the unauthorized practice of law (UPL); a person must possess an attorney’s license to hold himself out as a lawyer. UPL prohibitions restrict the right to pursue a legitimate occupation and the right to contract with others. By imposing a costly barrier to entry, they distort the market for legal services. Consequently, consumers face higher prices and fewer choices.”

New York Lawyer Sues Ex-Girlfriends For Posts On Liarscheatesrus.com

ABA Journal:  A Manhattan lawyer says he has lost clients because of online posts claiming he is a cheating “scum” who dumped his girlfriends.

Matthew Couloute Jr. is fighting back with a federal lawsuit filed against two ex-girlfriends, including former roller derby queen Stacey Blitsch, the New York Post reports. Couloute, who is now a married man, claims the posts at liarscheatersrus.com have interfered with prospective business relations.

Legal Protection For Unattractive People?

ABA Journal:  An economics professor is making the case for legal protections against looks-challenged people.

Writing an op-ed for the New York Times, University of Texas professor Daniel Hamermesh cites findings that good-looking people make more money, find higher-earning spouses, and get better mortgage deals. One study shows American workers assessed as being in the bottom seventh in terms of looks earn about $230,000 less in a lifetime than similar workers in the top third of looks.

Hamermesh offers a solution: Protect ugliness with small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could get help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly,” he suggests.

Federal Asset Seizures On The Rise

Estate of Denial:New York businessman James Lieto was an innocent bystander in a fraud investigation last year. Federal agents seized $392,000 of his cash anyway.

An armored-car firm hired by Mr. Lieto to carry money for his check-cashing company got ensnared in the FBI probe. Agents seized about $19 million—including Mr. Lieto’s money—from vaults belonging to the armored-car firm’s parent company.

He is one among thousands of Americans in recent decades who have had a jarring introduction to the federal system of asset seizure. Some 400 federal statutes—a near-doubling, by one count, since the 1990s—empower the government to take assets from convicted criminals as well as people never charged with a crime.

Last year, forfeiture programs confiscated homes, cars, boats and cash in more than 15,000 cases. The total take topped $2.5 billion, more than doubling in five years, Justice Department statistics show.

The expansion of forfeiture powers is part of a broader growth in recent decades of the federal justice system that has seen hundreds of new criminal laws passed. Some critics have dubbed the pattern as the overcriminalization of American life. The forfeiture system has opponents across the political
spectrum, including representatives of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union on the left and the Heritage Foundation on the right. They argue it represents a widening threat to innocent people.

Go to Top