By Briana Longo

The Spring 2016 Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal annual symposium focused on technology in the workplace. The three different panels, as well as the keynote speaker, spoke on the growing use of technology in various areas of employment, and how smart phones and social media in particular pose problems for both the employee and employer. The third panel, made up of three highly respected and knowledgeable attorneys, discussed cyber security and electronic employment records.  Ms. Melissa Krasnow, Ms. Jessica C. Moller, and Mr. Steven C. Sheinberg explained the importance of protecting valuable information in the off chance there is a cyber breach, and what employers, and employees, should do if it happens.[1]

With the growth of technology, cyber crimes have become more common, so concerns about security of personal information have also become prevalent. Most cyber breaches originate from within the company.[2]  Employees are mere negligence are the leading cause of security leaks.[3]  Employers, and some employees, are privy to confidential employee information, and are at risk for unauthorized access and disclosure of this information.[4]  Computer servers hold massive amounts of personal employee information, that if exposed, could be detrimental to the lives of employees.  Servers hold various employees information including: bank account information, social security numbers, and e-mail information.[5]   In the event of a breach, a problem arises for the employer because an employer has an obligation to its employees to maintain the best practices to secure employee information, and help those that are affected.[6]

What can employers do to protect employee’s private information?

Employers must have knowledge of and access to information and otherwise confidential data regarding their employees, but must also protect the confidentiality of such data.[7]

In New York, employers are prohibited from publically displaying, printing, or communicating an employees social security number, and cannot require the disclosure of the social security number.[8]  Additionally, employers must take reasonable measures to ensure that no other employee has access to the information.[9]  New York also prohibits employers from requiring fingerprinting as a condition of employment, but allow biometric scanners if it is being used to record time.[10]  However, if the biometric scanner traces any sort of fingerprint, under New York law, it is illegal.[11]

Additionally, various federal statutes, such as HIPAA and FMLA, place limits on an employer’s ability to obtain medical information about their employees, unless part of employment records, such as doctor’s notes submitted to excuse absences from work.[12]

What can be done in the event of a cyber breach, and to help those affected?

In the event of any breach, Melissa Krasnow recommends to call the United States Secret Service and let them know what has occurred.[13]  While there is no federal law combatting cyber breaches, forty-seven states have breach notification laws.[14]  The state laws are constantly being updated to protect more and more.[15]

The laws continue to be amended to “(1) provide for notification of a state attorney general or regulator about a breach in addition to affected individuals, (2) cover breaches involving personal information in both electronic and paper formats, and (3) address identity theft prevention and mitigation services.”[16]   Specific breach notification laws vary, from requiring notification to the state attorneys general where the breach affects more than 250 individuals or 250 residents, to 500 residents. [17] However, in New York, the law requires notification of a breach to a state attorney regardless of the number of affected individuals.[18]  Additionally, in the event of a breach involving personal information in electronic and paper format, eight states, that does not include New York, have laws requiring notification to an attorney general in addition to notifying the affected individual.[19]  Lastly, Connecticut requires there be identity theft prevention, and, if applicable, identify theft mitigation services to each resident who was breached, and Rhode Island requires there be credit monitoring available for its affected residents, but New York does not have any law that requires any theft prevention or mitigation services.[20]

To protect your data from suffering a cyber breach, the panel recommends to:

  • gather all protected information;
  • encrypt all data;
  • segregate different data on separate networks;
  • give out private information out strictly on a need to know basis;
  • monitor network traffic;
  • update software;
  • and have a good cyber security insurance policy. [21]


[1] Melissa Krasnow is a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Jessica C. Moller is a member of Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC. Steven C. Sheinberg is the General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Privacy and Security at the Anti-Defamation League.

[2] Steve Sheinberg, Compromised by Insiders, Workplace Tech Law Blog (Apr. 15, 2015) https://workplacetechlaw.com/2015/04/13/compromised-by-insiders/.

[3] Id.

[4] Jessica C. Moller, Member, Bond Schoeneck & King, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium: Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

[5] Steven C. Sheinberg, General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Privacy and Security at the Anti-Defamation League, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium: Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

[6] Id.

[7] Jessica C. Moller, Member, Bond Schoeneck & King, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium: Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

[8] New York Labor Law § 203-d

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Jessica C. Moller, Member, Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium: Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016). See also 42 U.S.C. §300gg; 42 U.S.C. § 1320d; 29 U.S.C. § 1181.

[13] Melissa J. Krasnow, Partner, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium: Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Melissa J. Krasnow, State Breach Notification Laws Continue to Change, IRMI (June 2015).

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Steven C. Sheinberg, General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Privacy and Security at the Anti-Defamation League, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium: Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

V.33 Symposium (Technology in the Workplace) – Recap of Panel No. 1: Bring Your Own Device “BYOD” Policies

By: Lindsay Korn


IPhones, as explained by Jeffrey M. Schlossberg, are not just cellphones, but are actually computers.[1] Schlossberg noted that in today’s day in age, iPhones are “a million times more powerful than a desktop.”[2] In the workplace, many employees link their smart phones with their work email addresses, leaving work every day with confidential and proprietary material.[3] Though companies used to buy phones that were company owned and controlled, many employers stopped these purchases because employees were buying their own, more updated, phones.[4] Mr. Schlossberg went on to explain the “D” portion of the “BYOD” (Bring Your Own Device) Policy. Devices include phones, tablets, laptops, flash drives, or any other portable device that you can leave work and bring back to work.[5]

When employees use their own devices, employers found that their employees are more productive, are able to work at all hours of the day, and are able to maintain a better work-life balance.[6] However, there are a number of concerns and problems with an employee bringing his or her own device to work. For example, “one bad swipe” and you can accidentally send out highly confidential company information to a competitor.[7] IPhones also add a wrinkle to the employer litigation practice since they are easy to lose, can be easily stolen, and can be used as evidence for workplace harassment.[8]

In addition, non-compete agreements are now impacted by BYOD policies. For instance, when an employer sues an employee who works for a competitor despite signing a non-compete agreement, a judge will ask the employer why they didn’t want the employee working for the competitor and what steps they took to ensure the information was kept confidential from a competitor.[9] Before the growth of technology, an employer could successfully argue that they took adequate steps of keeping information confidential by locking their file cabinets.[10] However, if an employer allows its employees to use their own devices and they do not have a BYOD policy, it’s more difficult for the employer to argue that they have taken adequate steps to ensure the protection of confidential information.[11]

After Mr. Schlossberg set the stage of why the BYOD policy is an issue for employers, Orly Lobel continued the conversation with a focus on the impact of intellectual property when an employee uses a personal device.[12] For example, programming on one’s own device versus programming on a company’s device can make a difference in litigation when determining who owns intellectually property.[13] Ms. Lobel suggested that employers, or even state laws, should implement company policies to establish what is proprietary.[14] California Labor Code, for instance, has a statute that explains that if an employee creates something on his own time, on his own equipment, then as a matter of public policy, it is his property.[15]

Next, Robert T. Szyba discussed how BYOD policies impact litigation procedure.[16] In discovery, for instance, it becomes an issue of determining which devices must be turned over. Mr. Szyba argued that an effective BYOD policy would include some provision that gives an employee the obligation to comply with discovery requests for their devices.[17] Mr. Szyba also explained the potential problem of a personal device that has “smoking gun” evidence.[18] Such a device may get lost or destroyed accidentally or the employee may just get a newer version of the phone and not think twice about saving the original, incriminating phone. In addition, depending on the state, a potential pitfall for BYOD is the impact on attorney-client privilege. For instance, when personal e-mails are sent via a company computer, there is an issue on whether such communication is privileged.[19]

Andriette Roberts concluded the panel and explained the issue of employee privacy rights with BYOD, wage and hour issues, and the importance of having a BYOD policy.[20] If an employer hires an employee as a driver, for example, and uses a GPS to track where the employee goes, this may infringe on the employee’s privacy.[21] If the employer discovers through the GPS that the employee is travelling to improper locations and fires the employee, the employee may rebut with a privacy defense.[22] In addition, courts are starting to award Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) damages for off-the-clock time spent by employees for job-related phone calls.[23] Ms. Roberts suggested that the best practices for employers would be to implement BYOD policies that, for example, state that employees have “no reasonable expectations of privacy.”[24] These BYOD policies should also specify time spent responding to e-mails or phone calls and other off-the-clock work.[25]

[1] Jeffrey M. Schlossberg, Principal, Jackson Lewis P.C., Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Kerry Doyle, What BYOD Has To Offer: Benefits and Pitfalls, FORBES, (Nov. 14, 2013), http://www.forbes.com/sites/xerox/2013/11/14/what-byod-has-to-offer-benefits-and-pitfalls/#65f05b161e46.

[7] Schlossberg, supra note 1.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Orly Lobel, Don Weckstein Professor of Labor and Employment Law, University of San Diego School of Law, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.; Cal. Lab. Code § 2870.

[16] Robert T. Szyba, Associate, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th, 1047, 1051-2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (holding emails sent on a company computer were akin to consulting a lawyer in the employer’s conference room, in a loud voice, with the door open, and thus the communications were not privileged); but see Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 N.J 300, 314 (2010) (holding that emails sent on a company computer via the employee’s password-protected, personal account are subject to attorney-client privilege). Mr. Szyba illustrated that if an employee in New Jersey, for example, wanted to sue her employer for pregnancy harassment and used her personal Yahoo email address on a company laptop to email another attorney about suing the employer, there is an expectation of privacy. Szyba, supra note 16.

[20] Andriette A. Roberts ’09, Associate, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Speaker at Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal Symposium Technology in the Workplace (Apr. 15, 2016).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.


Uber Wars: The Chamber Strikes Back

By: Ashtyn Hemendinger

In late 2015, Seattle approved legislation allowing unionization for workers of ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft.[1] The city council’s unanimous decision made Seattle the nation’s first city[2] to let these workers collectively bargain.[3] Council Member Mike O’Brien, the one responsible for this big change, proposed this legislation back in September with the hopes to create “a process by which a majority of independently contracted drivers working for the same company could choose to join a so-called driver representative organization to negotiate pay rates and other conditions of employment.”[4]

This legislation is another notch on labor activists’ belts in their fight for gig-economy workers,[5] especially after a ruling in California classified Uber’s drivers as employees and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division passed down guidance stating that most workers qualify as employees.[6]  However, this progress made for Uber drivers and other gig-economy workers may come to a screeching halt as roadblocks lie ahead.

In late February, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) brought suit against the city of Seattle over the collective bargaining law for Uber and Lyft drivers.[7]  The Chamber, a lobbying group representing more than three million businesses, wants a judge to suspend the law because they believe that if ordinances like this continue to pop up across the United States, communities will be prevented from growing and benefiting from the evolving economy.[8] As a result, prices will likely increase and there will have to be a reduced quality in service.[9]  The Chamber further argues that the legislation is preempted by federal law and violates antitrust law, thereby making it easier for drivers to get together and set rates, leaving the employers with no choice but to raise fares for consumers.[10]  Not only does this violate antitrust laws, but it also restricts the freedoms independent contractors.[11] For instance, by unionizing and participating in collective bargaining, independent contractors will no longer have the option of choosing how many hours they want to work, as the union will likely have maximum and minimum working hour requirements.[12]

While workers’ rights are important, is this legislation really worth the loss in flexibility for both drivers and passengers? Does the right to collectively bargain outweigh the damage to the gig economy business that could possibly result? The Chamber thinks so and hopes the court finds that Seattle is running afoul of federal afoul of federal laws.[13]

Until classification of these gig economy workers are solidified, issues such as these will continue to occur. Perhaps instead of trying to squeeze gig economy workers into one of these categories, it is time for Congress to create a new classification.  The chance of this happening any time soon, however, does not seem likely.[14]

[1] Kurt Orzeck, Seattle Becomes First US City to OK Unions For Uber Drivers, Law360 (Dec. 14, 2015), http://0-www.law360.com.libweb.hofstra.edu/articles/737846/seattle-becomes-first-us-city-to-ok-unions-for-uber-drivers.

[2] Id.  Seattle is leading the way in raising labor standards for workers. Id.  They were also the first major city to adopt the $15 minimum wage. Id.

[3] Id

[4] Aaron Vehling, Seattle Proposes Collective Bargaining Law for Cabdrivers, Law360 (Sept. 2, 2015), http://0-www.law360.com.libweb.hofstra.edu/articles/698369/seattle-proposes-collective-bargaining-law-for-cabdrivers.

[5] See, e.g., Nithin Coca, Can we build a humane alternative to Uber?, The Kernel (Feb. 28, 2016), http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-sections/15961/uber-on-demand-humane-working-conditions/; Katie Unger, No Backspace: Workers Against NYC’s Growing ‘Gig Economy’, City Limits (Jan. 25, 2016), http://citylimits.org/2016/01/25/no-backspaceworkers-against-nycs-growing-gig-economy/.

[6] Erin Coe, Uber Ruling Puts Sharing Economy’s Business Model in Limbo, Law360 (June 24, 2015), http://0-www.law360.com.libweb.hofstra.edu/articles/671485/uber-ruling-puts-sharing-economy-s-business-model-in-limbo; Gabriel Arevalo, Driving Ms. Classification: Uber’s Possible Misclassification of Drivers, The LEJER (Nov. 8, 2015), https://thelejer.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/driving-ms-classification-ubers-possible-misclassification-of-drivers/.

[7] King 5, US Chamber sues over Seattle letting Uber, Lyft drivers unionize, Seattle Sun Times (Mar. 4, 2016), http://seattle.suntimes.com/sea-news/7/79/271872/us-chamber-sues-over-seattle-letting-uber-lyft-drivers-unionize.

[8] Phuong Le, Chamber sues over Seattle law letting Uber drivers unionize, Miami Herald (Mar. 3, 2016), http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article63921102.html.

[9] See id.

[10] Le, supra n. 8; Nick Statt,  US Chamber of Commerce is suing Seattle for letting Uber and Lyft unionize, The Verge (Mar. 3, 2016), http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/3/11158160/uber-lyft-unions-chamber-of-commerce-lawsuit.

[11] Id.

[12] See Stephanie Milot, Seattle Sued for Letting Lyft, Uber Drivers Unionize, PC Mag (Mar. 4, 2016), http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2500325,00.asp.

[13] Id.

[14] See Jonathan Rosenblum, To Fight Back Against Companies Like Uber, Workers Need Organizing—Not Technocratic Fixes, In These Times (Jan. 19, 2016), http://inthesetimes.com/article/print/18787/GigEconomy-Workersrights-taxies-labor-Uber.

Medical Marijuana Use: a New Cause of Action for Discrimination?

By: Maryam Nayibova

In a case of first impression, decided just last month, a District Court in New Mexico ruled that an employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana.[1]  In that case, an employee, Rojerio Garcia suffered from HIV/AIDS and was prescribed medical marijuana to ease his pain.[2]  Mr. Garcia applied for acceptance into the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program, an agency of the New Mexico Department of Health, and was accepted and issued a Patient Identification Card.[3]  He subsequently applied for a job at the Tractor Supply Company, was hired and then had to undergo a drug test, where he tested positive for cannabis.[4]  At the interview, Mr. Garcia divulged his condition and his participation in the Medical Cannabis Program.[5]  Regardless of this, Mr. Garcia was discharged because of the result of the drug test, after which he filed a complained stating that he was unlawfully discriminated against by the company, when they failed to accommodate his use of medical marijuana.[6]

After exhausting his administrative remedies (where Labor Relations Division found no probable cause), Mr. Garcia filed suit.[7]  The Court found that the New Mexico’s Compassionate Use Act, combined with the New Mexico Human Rights Act does not provide a cause of action for Mr. Garcia, as medical marijuana is not an accommodation that must be provided for by the employer.”[8]  New Mexico is not the only state to reach such conclusion.[9]

It is clear that New Mexico will not be among those states that do require employers to accommodate for use of medial marijuana just yet.[10]  For example, Rhode Island has a law that prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, or education because of a person’s use of medical marijuana.[11]  Since it was enacted, not a single lawsuit was brought challenging either the statute or asserting that the employer discriminated by not accommodating, which means that accommodation by employers is not impossible.[12]  To this date, twenty-three states have passed laws allowing the use of medical marijuana.[13]  This has created confusion for employees and employers alike.[14] Employers are still looking for concrete guidance regarding employees who are medical marijuana users.[15]  It’s not exactly clear where this issue is heading, especially where Federal and State laws differ and nine of the medical marijuana statutes explicitly state that an employer is not required to accommodate use of marijuana, and none of the statutes even address accommodation.[16]  To better state their case, patients/employees with permission to use medical marijuana, can continue bringing suits for disability discrimination under the ADA, and hopefully with the ongoing legislation legalizing marijuana in many states, courts will feel compelled to rule differently when it comes to medical marijuana in the workplace.[17]

[1] Rojerio Garcia v. Tractor Supply Co., CV 15-00735 WJ/WPL, 2016 WL 93717 (D.N.M. Jan. 7, 2016).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., 174 P.3d 200, 206-07 (Cal. 2008) (stating that employers do not have to accommodate such use, even if the employee’s job performance was in no way impeded by the employee’s use of medical marijuana); see also Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914 (W.D. Mich. 2011).

[10] Fred Hosier, Worker has medical marijuana license: Can company fire him? (Jan. 2016), http://www.safetynewsalert.com/worker-has-medical-marijuana-license-can-company-fire-him/; see also Hunton & Williams LLP (Jan. 2015), http://www.huntonlaborblog.com/2015/01/articles/criminal-background-checks/antidiscrimination-provisions-in-state-medical-marijuana-laws-raise-additional-considerations-for-workplace-drug-testing/.

[11] Elizabeth Hurwitz, Out of the Shadows, into the Light: Preventing Workplace Discrimination Against Medical Marijuana Users, 46 U.S.F. L. Rev. 249, 274 (2011); see also 21 R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 21-28.6-4 (West).

[12] Elizabeth Hurwitz, Out of the Shadows, into the Light: Preventing Workplace Discrimination Against Medical Marijuana Users, 46 U.S.F. L. Rev. 249, 274 (2011).

[13] Robert L. DuPont, Workplace Drug Testing in the Era of Legal Marijuana, INSt. FOR BEHAVIOR AND HEALTH (March 2015), http://www.drugfreebusiness.org/Media/documents/IBH_workplacetesting.pdf

[14] Id.

[15] Stacy A. Hickox, Clearing the Smoke on Medical Marijuana Users in the Workplace, 29 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 1001 (2011)

[16] Id.

[17] Elizabeth Rodd, Light, Smoke, and Fire: How State Law Can Provide Medical Marijuana Users Protection from Workplace Discrimination, 55 B.C. L. Rev. 1759, 1772-73 (2014).


You’ve Got the Hijab!: How the Supreme Court’s Decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. has Given Employees a Head Start in Obtaining Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Clothing

By: Dominic Delorantis

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.,[1] employers are faced with new concerns when dealing with the religious practices of job applicants. In an 8-1 decision lead by the late Justice Scalia, the Court held that in order to bring a disparate treatment claim, a job applicant must only show that a motivating factor in not hiring them was their need for a religious accommodation, rather than having to show that the prospective employer actually knew that the applicant’s religious practice required an accommodation.[2] What this means for employers looking to hire new employees is that if the employer suspects, or has reason to believe, that an applicant may require an accommodation, they will now need to consider whether an inquiry should be made.[3] This inquiry process, however, may be the cause of many headaches for potential employers.

Moving forward, a potential employer must be cautious when confronting an applicant’s religion during the interview process, both in deciding whether to make an inquiry into the applicant’s religion, and how to handle the procedure that would follow such an inquiry. If the employer suspects during the interview process that an applicant’s religious practices may come in conflict with one of their company policies, the employer must make the applicant aware of the policy and—without referencing their religion—ask if the applicant would be able to comply with the policy.[4] If at this point the applicant does not request a reasonable accommodation or confirms that the policy would not cause an issue or conflict, the conversion does not need to proceed any further.[5] If, however, the applicant alludes to the need for an accommodation, then the employer should engage in an interactive dialogue with the candidate about requesting an accommodation and the employer’s ability to facilitate this request.[6] With these new procedures set in place, it has become harder for employers to essentially bury their head in the sand when it comes to addressing whether an applicant may require a religious accommodation, especially with companies that have image-based policies.[7]

This victory for job applicants adds to the growing global trend, in both the United States and abroad, of allowing reasonable accommodations to be made for religious clothing.[8] In the United States, the federal government has relaxed their dress code by allowing service members to wear turbans, beards, yarmulkes, head scarfs, and other religious clothing as long as they do not interfere with good order and discipline.[9] Although permission must be given on an individual, case-by-case basis by the military for a religious accommodation, it is the first step the Department of Defense has taken to encourage widespread religious acceptance throughout the organization.[10] In Canada and London, police uniforms sporting built-in headscarves were approved for use by Muslim employees in an effort to accommodate their religious needs.[11]

Coupling these advances with the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter has given employees much headway in terms of securing their religious rights in the workplace and has made it so that companies can no longer hide behind a veil when it comes to making reasonable accommodations for religious clothing.

[1] E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015).

[2] Id. at 2033.

[3] Lauri Damrell & Anne Shaver, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Am. B. Ass’n, http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/groups/labor_law/ll_hottopics/hot2015/jun2015ht.html (last visited Mar. 3, 2016).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] See Ed Silverstein, Companies need to learn from EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch decision, Inside Counsel (June 5, 2015), http://www.insidecounsel.com/2015/06/05/companies-need-to-learn-from-eeoc-v-abercrombie-f?slreturn=1457554090.

[8] See e.g. David Alexander, Pentagon Relaxes Rules On Religious Clothing And Appearance In Military Uniforms Allowing Turbans, Head Scarves And Yarmulkes, Reuters (Jan. 23, 2014, 9:08 AM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/pentagon-religious-clothing_n_4651050.html; The Huffington Post Alberta, Hijab Uniform for Edmonton Police Approved, Huffington Post (Dec. 7, 2013 3:04 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/07/hijab-uniform-edmonton-police_n_4404742.html; Cindi John, Police hope for Muslim head start, BBC (Apr. 24, 2001, 2:25 GMT), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1294417.stm.

[9] See Alexander, supra note 8.

[10] Id.

[11] See The Huffington Post Alberta, Hijab Uniform for Edmonton Police Approved, Huffington Post (Dec. 7, 2013 3:04 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/07/hijab-uniform-edmonton-police_n_4404742.html; Nick Hopkins, Met lets Muslim policewoman don headscarves, The Guardian (Apr. 24, 2001, 10:12 PM), http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/apr/25/ukcrime.religion.

Pregnancy in the Workplace: A Labor of Love

By: Christen Kalkanis

In 2014, a New Jersey publication was released explaining how legislative findings show that pregnant employees are more vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace than other employers.[1] For example, an employee requesting an extra break during her workday due to her pregnancy was either subject to unpaid leave or termination.[2] Because of this, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”) has decided to step in and create more stringent rules affording pregnant employees more rights and protections when requesting certain accommodations during their pregnancies.[3]

Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace occurs when an employer discriminates against an employee or prospective employee on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth.[4] Due to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and further amendments by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, any acts of a discriminatory nature relating to an employee’s pregnancy is strictly prohibited and enforced by the EEOC.[5] A person is discriminated against when an employer refuses to hire or subsequently fires a pregnant applicant or employee, treats a pregnant employee differently than others, or commits various other acts of similarly related conditions.[6]

On June 25, 2015 the EEOC distributed a press release stating that they have updated their pregnancy discrimination guidance.[7] The press release referenced the use of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. UPS to outline the policy reasons for the recent changes made related to pregnancy discrimination.[8] In Young the employee brought action against employer United Parcel Service, Inc., alleging that employer had subjected her to pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter “ADA”) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (hereinafter “PDA”) by refusing to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction.[9] After the employee appealed a district court decision, certiorari was granted.[10] The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Appellate Court’s decision stating that Young provided evidence showing “a genuine dispute as to whether the employer provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation could not be distinguished.”[11]
Due to the newly amended guidelines, employers in various states should now expect more pregnancy accommodations requests in 2016.[12] Specifically, New Jersey is now required to provide additional protections to pregnant employees suffering from disparate treatment when there is “evidence of an employer policy or practice that, although not facially discriminatory, significantly burdens pregnant employees and cannot be supported by a sufficiently strong justification.”[13] For example, a pregnant employee will now be granted more bathroom breaks, periodic rests throughout the workday, and extra breaks for increased water intake.[14] Although only sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and four cities have passed laws requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers, these guidelines are expected to be adopted by all fifty states by the end of 2017.[15]

[1] Amber Spataro, Lison Andolena, & Jessica Agarwal, New Jersey Employers Face New Pregnancy Accommodation Requirements, Littler (Feb. 7, 2014), https://www.littler.com/new-jersey-employers-face-new-pregnancy-accommodation-requirements.

[2] See generally id.

[3] See Press Release, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Issues Updated Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance (June 25, 2015)(on file with author).

[4] Your Rights: Pregnancy Discrimination, Workplace Fairness (Dec. 2009), https://www.workplacefairness.org/pregnancy-discrimination#3. (last visited Jan. 19, 2016).

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Richard L. Connors, 2016: The Year Ahead for Employers, Jackson Lewis, Jan. 2016, at 2.

[8] Press Release, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Issues Updated Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance (June 25, 2015)(on file with author); see also Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015).

[9] Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338, 1349 (2015).

[10] Id. at 1350.

[11] Id. at 1340.

[12] See Richard L. Connors, 2016: The Year Ahead for Employers, Jackson Lewis, Jan. 2016, at 6.

[13] See U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, Enforcement Guidance: Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues (2015).

[14] Id.

[15] See Richard L. Connors, 2016: The Year Ahead for Employers, Jackson Lewis, Jan. 2016, at 6.

Tagged , , , ,

The Employment Law Game is About to Blow Up: A Look At How The Conflict in the Middle East Is Affecting Employment for Middle Easterners

By: Jesse Fishman

If you don’t live under a rock you might have heard about a little conflict in the Middle East, and by little conflict, I mean the one that has been going on for a few thousand years and may a hot topic during the political debates of 2015 and 2016.[1] The candidates in those debates field questions about foreign policy and immigration policy and how they will deal with Muslims if elected President.[2] In December of 2015, amidst the growing fear from events taking place in the United States and abroad, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) issued two informational question and answer guidance documents about employees who are perceived to be Muslim or Middle Eastern.[3] The documents were issued to remind employers that discrimination based on nation of origin, race, or religion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4] The documents take you through a series of hypotheticals that include when a woman wears a hijab, when someone calls a co-worker a terrorist, and religious accommodations.[5] Also, in the guidance documents it is noted that employers cannot make applicants or employees undergo additional security clearance checks.[6] The documents also note that the discrimination practices also apply to people who appear to be from the Middle East or are Muslim.[7] These publications were issued because of the real fear of Muslim radicalization or as some refer it as Muslim extremism.[8]

Do Americans feel this way about Middle Easterners more so than other groups because they view them as being loyal to their home countries as opposed to the United States? Professor Angelo Ancheta thinks so, “Arab Americans [and Latinos] are other groups whose locations in the American racial landscape are defined by foreignness.”[9] For example, in a Chicago suburb, protesters marched on a mosque chanting “U-S-A” because they believed a mosque is something un-American.[10]

The proportion of full-time employed Muslim compares very similar percentage wise to the general public.[11] “But underemployment is more common among Muslims than in the general public; 29% of Muslims are either unemployed and looking for work or working part-time but would prefer to have full-time employment, compared with 20% of adults nationwide who are in these circumstances.”[12] Younger Muslims, under the age of 30 have a much higher unemployment rate than older ones.[13] Is this because employers are fearful, that when interviewing Muslim applicants they might be hiring the next San Bernadino shooter? It just might be.

[1] See Washington Post Staff, The CNN Democratic debate transcript, annotated, The Washington Post (Oct. 13, 2015) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-oct-13-democratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/.

[2] See Id.

[3] Susana Knutsbon Gibbons, The National Law Review (Jan. 24, 2016) http://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-cautions-employers-about-discrimination-against-employees-who-are-or-are. Of note, one document was for employers, and the other for employees.

[4] See id.

[5] Chair Jenny R. Yang, Questions and Answers for Employers: Responsibilities Concerning the Employment of Individuals Who Are, or Are Perceived to Be, Muslim or Middle Eastern, guidance document, EEOC, (Dec. 23, 2015),http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/muslim_middle_eastern_employers.cfm

[6] Jeffrey D. Polsky. EEOC Issues New Guidance Document on Discrimination Against Muslims, Caliornia Employment Law: Comments on Issues Facing California Employers, (Jan. 5, 2016), http://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2016/01/articles/discrimination/eeoc-issues-new-guidance-on-discrimination-against-muslims/.

[7] Id.

[8] Susana Knutsbon Gibbons, The National Law Review (Jan. 24, 2016) http://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-cautions-employers-about-discrimination-against-employees-who-are-or-are.

[9] Angelo Ancheta, Race, Rights, and the Asian American Experience, 64 (Rutgers University Press, 1998).

[10] Ghada Quaisi Audi, Challenges Facing the Arab American Community from a Legal Perspective, (2008), http://www.asjournal.org/52-2008/challenges-facing-the-arab-american-community-from-a-legal-perspective/#sdfootnote2sym.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

Tagged , , , , ,

Are you a babe?

By: Mary Morandini

On September 17, 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the Borgata’s personal appearance standards (“PAS”), holding that the policy did not violate New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) because the law does not encompass allegations of discrimination based on weight, appearance, or sex appeal.[1] In short, the Borgata can discipline a group of employees, known as the BorgataBabes, for gaining weight, or otherwise failing to meet the other aesthetic requirements enumerated in the PAS. The BorgataBabes are a specialized group of cocktail servers dressed in costume which debuted with the Borgata Hotel, Casino & Spa in Atlantic City in 2003.[2] The BorgataBabes were created to differentiate the Borgata from the Atlantic City competition by bringing the Las Vegas style to Atlantic City. The group was intended to represent the “fun, upscale, sensual, international image” of the Borgata brand.[3]

The initial PAS policy from 2003 required the BorgataBabes’ weight, both men and women, be “proportional to height” but this provision was amended in 2005,[4] which now requires employees to maintain a maximum weight within seven percent of their personal weight.[5] The PAS policy further requires employees to adhere to strict grooming and appearance requirements.[6] Women are expected to have a natural hourglass shape,[7] while men should have a V-shape,[8] and all BorgataBabes must be physically fit.[9] If employees failed to meet any these standards, there was the threat of suspension for up to 90 days.[10]

Notwithstanding the threat of being reprimanded for failing to comply with standards relating strictly to physical appearance, the complainants[11] felt the PAS discriminated against women, that they were being treated as sex objects, and ultimately were not being treated equally compared to their male counterparts.[12] While the court recognized the Borgata’s PAS were a rather archaic stereotype of male and female physiques, the LAD did not provide the kind of protection the female complainants were seeking. For a gender discrimination complaint to withstand dismissal the plaintiff(s) must prove, beyond a preponderance of evidence that he or she is (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified for and performed the essential functions of the job; (3) has suffered adverse employment action; and (4) others outside of the protected class did not suffer similar adverse employment action.[13]

Unfortunately, the court found that discipline for non-compliance of the weight standard was equally applicable to both the male and female BorgataBabes.[14] The evidence produced at trial additionally provided no support to the claim that the PAS imposed an unequal burden on one gender over the other.[15] Thus, the PAS was not discriminatory against women and was a “reasonable dress and grooming code” considering the nature of the industry, as provided by the New Jersey statute.[16]

There is one saving grace however, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims.[17] Although they were unable to prove the Borgata’s expectations on their appearance were discriminatory, these women may still have an opportunity to speak out about the pressures of being a BorgataBabe.

[1] Schiavo v. Marina District Development Co., 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 156, 4 (2015).

[2] The Borgata was the first casino to open in Atlantic City in over a decade. Id. at 5.

[3] Id.

[4] See Michael H. Dell & Mary B. Rogers, The Curious Case of ‘Borgata Babes,’ Law360 (Oct. 23, 2015, 12:18 PM), https://www.law360.com/appellate/articles/715134/the-curious-case-of-borgata-babes-.

[5] See Schiavo, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS at 9 (“[T]he original requirement to ‘maintain approximately the same physical appearance’ as when hired.”). See also, Dell, supra note 3 (noting that weight was determined either on the date of hire for new employees, or in 2005 following amendment to the policy for current employees).

[6] See Schiavo, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS at 7 (including a healthy smile, being physically fit and various facial hair specifications for men).

[7] Dell, supra note 3.

[8] Schiavo, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS at 7 (meaning broad shoulders and a slim waist).

[9] Id.

[10] Bryce Covert, Court Allows Casino to Punish Employees for Gaining Weight, ThinkProgress (Sept. 18, 2015, 10:50 AM), http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/09/18/3703065/borgata-babes-loss/.

[11] The complainants were twenty-one women who worked as BorgataBabes under the 2005 policy. Schiavo, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS at 10.

[12] See id. at 49 (“Defendant’s evidence reflected only twenty-five of 686 women, or 3%, were disciplined, and none of the forty-six men were disciplined.”).

[13] Id. at 19.

[14] Id. at 49 (refuting the fourth element for a sex discrimination case, men were subject to the same standards as the female complainants). The court also found that there was no protected class relating to weight. Id. at 30-1.

[15] See id. at 37 (finding that both male and female BorgataBabes were subject to the same weight standard).

[16] See id. at 31 (“Nothing in this provision shall affect the ability of an employer to require employees to adhere to reasonable workplace appearance, grooming and dress standards[.]”). See also, Dell, supra note (noting the impact of the courts holding is limited to the specific facts as relating to the Borgata and the casino industry).

[17] Schiavo, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS at 57-8.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Up Up and Away into the Cloud!

By Ashtyn Hemendinger

The Cloud is a nebulous subject matter for many. One may wonder, what is the cloud and even more so, what does the cloud have to do with employment law? To answer the first question, the cloud is a collection of larger servers located elsewhere (e.g., data centers) and maintained by a vendor.[1] The data or application becomes accessible to users anywhere there is an Internet connection.[2] If you’ve used Gmail or a Dropbox, then you have experienced the Cloud.

Devices and the Cloud are being incorporated not only into people’s personal lives, but also into their work lives. More and more companies are switching to cloud-based technology systems for daily tasks and to streamline work product.[3] In the past, businesses would have to purchase software licenses and install programs on in-house computer servers.[4] Employees could access the software through a local area network and data was stored directly on the computers and servers.[5] In fact, “several cloud computing applications, such as web email, Wiki applications, and online tax preparation,” have become common uses for work and personal experiences.[6] With the increase in cloud computing application in the workforce, issues arise that involve employment law and security.

One cloud concern that employers should be aware of is wage and hour claims.[7] The cloud has further enabled employees to work outside the traditional office setting.[8] While laptops and smart phones broke the traditional office setting mold a while ago, cloud based computing goes one step further.[9] The Cloud allows workers access to email accounts and confidential files from any location and at any time. In situations where employees need to log all of their work hours, this out-of-office work creates a gray area for compensation.[10] Having an employee send a document over the weekend or check their email after-hours may not seem like a big deal, since it only takes a few minutes. However, these tasks can really add up.[11] If employees are not compensated for these tasks, employee complaints or suits could follow.[12]

To solve this issue, employers need to track employees’ out-of-the-office work to ensure that employees are not taking advantage of this privilege. Policies about when employees can use cloud-based software should be implemented by the company’s HR and IT departments.[13] However, due to the Cloud being a new topic in the workplace, the policies out there in the workplace at the moment are far from perfect. As time goes on, the employment world will have to adjust to the developing cloud technology and the issues that arise as a result.

[1] Web & Collaboration Overview, Bell Canada (2015), http://www.bell.ca/shop/SB_viewCustom.page?pageId=SB_WHAT_IS_CLOUD_COMPUTING.

[2] Daniel Schwartz, Cloud Computing and Employment Law: The Unchartered Sky, Connecticut Employment Law Blog, (June 23, 2009), http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2009/06/articles/cloud-computing-and-employment-law-the-uncharted-sky/

[3] 2011 CIO Agenda Findings, Gartner, http://www.gartner.com/technology/cio/cioagenda_findings.jsp (last visited Oct. 15, 2015) (stating that almost half of all CIOs expect to operate their applications and infrastructures via cloud technologies within the next five years); Law Firm Software Solution, Rippe & Kingston Law Firm Management Solutions (2012), http://www.legal.rippe.com/LMS.

[4] Cloud Concerns For Employers Part 1, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland PLLC (May 13, 2014), http://mcbrayeremploymentlaw.com/2014/05/13/cloud-concerns-for-employers-part-1/.

[5] Id.

[6] Cloud Computing, Electronic Privacy Information Center (2015), https://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/.

[7] Five Employment Law Considerations in “The Cloud,” Epstein Becker Green Take 5 Newsletter (Mar. 19, 2014), http://www.ebglaw.com/news/five-employment-law-considerations-in-the-cloud/.

[8] Cloud Concerns For Employers Part 1, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland PLLC (May 13, 2014), http://mcbrayeremploymentlaw.com/2014/05/13/cloud-concerns-for-employers-part-1/.

[9] Id.

[10] See id.

[11] Id.

[12] Cloud Concerns For Employers Part 1, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland PLLC (May 13, 2014), http://mcbrayeremploymentlaw.com/2014/05/13/cloud-concerns-for-employers-part-1/.

[13] Ian C. Schaefer, 5 Employment Law Considerations When Cloud Computing, Law360 (Apr. 8, 2014), http://www.law360.com/articles/523645/5-employment-law-considerations-when-cloud-computing.

Tagged , , , , ,

To Be or Not To Be, Motivated to Teach, That Is The Question

By: Adam Solomon

The comedic yet tragic evolution and near dissolution of the American Dream and valued education is upon us. “Teaching was once said to be a vocation.”[1] Perhaps it is the joy of teaching students how to write and learn, and helping students grow and mature.[2] People used to get into the teaching field to make a difference, to help kids, or to meet new students and thrive in an atmosphere of change and flexibility.[3] Unfortunately, times have changed in terms of education, and there has been an even growing downside for teachers. “Classroom teachers, especially those who are just out of college and entering the profession, are more stressed and less valued than at any previous time in our history.”[4] With substandard pay, politicians bashing and belittling their ability, being blamed for a lack of improvement in student grades based on arbitrary standards, and consistently faced with threats of losing benefits, never achieving tenure, and a fleeting glimpse of an ever more unobtainable notion of a pension,[5] it becomes harder and harder to fathom why anyone would still want to pursue a career as an educator. This quandary continues to widen as the devaluation and de-emphasis of classroom teachers continues to grow under the Common Core Standards.[6]

Ideally, Common Core standards are designed to create a higher level of thinking and prepare students for success in college, their careers, and life.[7] States were forced to adopt these national standards through the threatened withholding of federal grants.[8] Unfortunately, the sad reality has shown that much like the past failure of the No Child Left Behind policy, Common Core will only succeed in pushing more kids out of high school than it will prepare for college, while simultaneously punishing good teachers in the process.[9] Part of the implementation of these standards requires the use of the Common Core tests to evaluate teachers.[10] This inaccurate and unreliable practice only serves to further the assault on teaching, instead of renewing it as a profession.[11] Relying on tests results to evaluate teachers will have the natural effect of causing teachers to teach only to the test.[12] Teaching clearly isn’t what it used to be for public schools, but this dilemma doesn’t end there.

[T]he new standards have made learning more difficult across the board, especially for special educations students. . . . [T]he new standards represent a “developmentally inappropriate curriculum” for special education students and has had the additional effect of []taking away from schools’ and educators’ ability to really focus on differentiated and individualized sort of goals for those students.[13]

“The Common Core requires special-needs students to achieve the same level of academic proficiency as their nondisabled peers, despite these students needing up to 30–40 additional days of instruction to learn the same material.”[14] And of course, the inability of these students to adequately perform on a level well above their means, will cause teachers to receive failing evaluations and thereby less job security. “Teachers who receive ineffective ratings for two consecutive years may face an expedited dismissal process.”[15] The firing or “letting go” of teachers is one negative result of the new direction of teaching, but another perhaps more alarming one is the fact that teachers are simply leaving the profession all together, and some just can’t get out fast enough.[16] “A mass exodus is happening in k-12 education. Research shows that 50% of new teachers leave the job before year 5. That number is consistent across the country and represents a giant chunk of the workforce. According to [a] study conducted by Alliance for Excellent Education.”[17] Teachers being blamed for the problems of their students, and education as a whole, is enough to make them walk out the door.[18] But contributing to the list of reasons accounting for this massive turnover and possible future extinction of teachers are unsupportive administration and parents, unrealistic goals, tying teacher pay and evaluation to test scores, failing to give teachers the resources they need to do their job, and holding teachers accountable for things that are out of their control.[19] The hands’ of teachers are being tied behind their backs and then they are penalized for not being able to satisfactorily carry out their job.

“Several big states have seen alarming drops in enrollment at teacher training programs.”[20] The enrollment of teachers in California is down 53% over the past five years, with sharp declines in New York, Texas, and North Carolina as well.[21] “The erosion is steady. That’s a steady downward line on a graph. And there’s no sign that it’s being turned around.”[22] “Throw in the erosion of tenure protections and a variety of recession-induced budget cuts, and you’ve got the makings of a crisis. . . And students are hearing this. And it deters them from entering the profession.”[23] Based on the harsh standards inflicted on teachers, the shattering of their morale, the robbing of their hopes and dreams of fostering the young minds of future generations or simply being allowed to educate, and the lack of any change in sight, it is no wonder that there is a decline in the number of teachers, and a deterrent effect on those who want to be teachers altogether. If this downward trend continues, the question will no longer be why would anyone want to pursue a career as an educator, but rather who, if any, will be left willing to teach?

[1] Gerry Sutton, Column: I Don’t Teach For ‘Good Money’ or ‘Cushy Holidays’, TheJournal.ie (Oct. 16, 2013, 7:30 PM), http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/i-dont-teach-for-good-money-or-cushy-holidays-1129059-Oct2013/.

[2] Randy Turner, A Warning to Young People: Don’t Become a Teacher, The Huffington Post (Apr. 9, 2013, 4:58 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-turner/a-warning-to-young-people_b_3033304.html.

[3] See CTI Career Search, What It’s Really Like to Be an Elementary School Teacher, Teaching Community, http://teaching.monster.com/careers/articles/9638-what-its-really-like-to-be-an-elementary-school-teacher (last visited Oct. 21, 2015).

[4] Turner, supra note 2.

[5] See Id.

[6] Id.

[7] See Myths VS. Facts, Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/myths-vs-facts/ (last visited Oct. 21, 2015).

[8] The Trouble With the Common Core, Rethinking Schools (2003), http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/27_04/edit274.shtml.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] See Pamela Engel, This May Be The Biggest Problem With America’s ‘Common Core’ Education Standards, Business Insider (July 4, 2014), http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-biggest-problem-with-common-core-2014-7.

[13] Heba Kanso, Common Core: What’s Right for Special Education Students?, CBSNEWS (Apr. 16, 015, 5:41 AM), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/common-core-whats-right-for-special-educations-students/.

[14] Lauren Mitchell, The Unexplored Standards: Common Core’s Impact on Special-Needs Education, HSLDA (Feb. 2, 2015), https://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2015/201502020.asp.

[15] Amanda M. Fairbanks, Common Core: Will Test-Based Teacher Evaluations Derail the Common Core?, The Hechinger Report (Jan. 8, 2015), http://hechingerreport.org/will-test-based-teacher-evaluations-derail-common-core/.

[16] See Kathleen Jasper, Why Half of the Nation’s New Teachers Can’t Leave the Profession Fast Enough, ConversationED (Dec. 29, 2014), http://conversationed.com/2014/12/29/the-reason-50-of-new-teachers-are-leaving-the-profession-isnt-complicated/.

[17] Id.

[18] See Id.

[19] See Id.

[20] Eric Westervelt, Where Have All the Teachers Gone?, nprEd (Mar. 3, 2015, 2:03 PM), http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/03/03/389282733/where-have-all-the-teachers-gone.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers