NLRB Strikes Down Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Preventing Class Action, What Should Employers Do?

By Hanok George, Albany Government Law Review

On January 3, 2012, in D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that certain mandatory arbitration agreements that prevent employees from filing group or class actions in a judicial forum violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).[1]  The ruling essentially bans employment agreements used by many companies that require employees to individually arbitrate all work-related claims.[2]  The Board’s ruling significantly alters what has become a “common dispute resolution practice for many employers” and is effectively skirting the U.S. Supreme Court’s favorable outlook towards arbitration of employment claims.[3]  Companies are undoubtedly angered by this new decision; many denounced the ruling saying “it is an invitation to vast class action lawsuits on issues that could be resolved out of court.”[4]  It is also argued by the respondent in this case and by supporting amici that this decision is in conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).[5]  However, the Board holds that its ruling is not in violation of either statute.  In light of this decision, what should employers do to protect their arbitration agreements?

Mediation as an Option for Medical Malpractice Claims

By Joy David, Albany Government Law Review

Mediation may be the answer to several problems associated with medical malpractice litigation.  “Mediation consists of the use of a neutral third party to facilitate a discussion between two opposing parties in an informal environment where the parties have the opportunity to discuss accusations or other elements of conflict.”[1]  There are reasons to use mediation for medical malpractice claims, and reasons not to.  Policy considerations, as well as potential benefits to all parties involved, are cause to at least consider mediation as an option for dealing with medical malpractice claims.

An Analysis of Leandra’s Law: Are Mandatory Alcohol Ignition Interlocks an Effective Way to Curtail Drunken Driving?

By Stephanie Goutos, Albany Government Law Review

I. Introduction

On October 11, 2009, an intoxicated Carmen Huertas got into her vehicle and began to drive seven young children to a slumber party.[1]  Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau would later report that Ms. Huertas had “brushed off warnings that she was too drunk to drive,” [2] and authorities stated she was playing a guessing game with the passengers, asking them to raise their hands if they thought they would make it home without crashing.[3]  Ms. Huertas subsequently lost control of the vehicle, which swerved off the road and flipped over on the Henry Hudson Parkway.[4]  Huertas’s blood alcohol limit was tested at the scene of the accident and reported to be above 0.13 percent, surpassing the legal limit of 0.08.[5]  One of the passengers in the car was eleven year old Leandra Rosado, who was thrown from the vehicle as a result of the accident, and did not survive.[6]

Taking Work Home With You

By Beth Ensell, Albany Government Law Review

On November 23, 2011, the New York Appellate Division, Third Department issued a decision that allows employers to investigate employee misconduct using Global Positioning System (“GPS”) devices without first obtaining permission from the employee or a court.[1]  The investigation at issue in the appeal centered on Michael Cunningham, the former Director of Staff and Organizational Development for the New York State Department of Labor.[2]  Mr. Cunningham’s employer suspected that he engaged in “a pattern of taking unauthorized absences from work as well as falsifying time records.”[3]  The New York Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), after receiving the case by referral, decided to use a GPS device to assist in gathering evidence against Mr. Cunningham.[4]

New York’s Domestic Violence Firearm Protection Law – Is it Enough?

By Alaina Bergerstock, Albany Government Law Review

Research shows that a victim of domestic violence is more likely to end up dead if the batterer has a gun in his possession.[1]  The Department of Justice reports that of all domestic abuse cases that ended in death, two-thirds of the victims were killed by guns.[2]  On August 1, 2011 Governor Andrew Cuomo signed domestic violence firearm protection legislation.[3]  The purpose of the law is to ensure that individuals convicted of domestic violence related misdemeanors in New York State are prevented from purchasing firearms.[4]