Labor and employment roundup

  • Just another day on the one-way-attorney’s-fee beat: after $87K cop-discrimination verdict, lawyer wants $2.2M award []
  • U.S. Chamber white paper on needed fixes in labor law [Jon Hyman and report, “Restoring Common Sense to Labor Law: 10 Policies to Fix at the National Labor Relations Board”]
  • California employee-seating class actions begin paying off, $700,000 against Abercrombie & Fitch [Ford Harrison, earlier]
  • And good riddance: Trump signs CRA bill repealing labor blacklisting rule for federal contractors [Kathy Hoekstra/Watchdog, Trey Kovacs/CEI, Ford Harrison, earlier, background via PLF]
  • Trend worth resisting, if true: transnational norms emanating from International Labour Organization etc. said to be increasingly shaping U.S. labor law [James Brudney via Employment Law Prof]
  • To protect free speech and jobs, cut the EEOC’s budget [Hans Bader]

One Comment

  • Without even touching the number of hours claimed and the amount charged per hour:

    It really feels like double dipping to charge all that AND keep the retainer fee, doesn’t it? Is it standard practice to keep a 5 figure retainer from a middle-class individual and not put it towards the hours worked?

    Should he really get paid by the losing party even on the time spent on claims that lost at trial, and on fees for witnesses that were never called?

    Should he really get a “multiplier” because he might not have won and his client would obviously have been unable to pay him millions?

    What exactly are the “tax consequences” of a verdict, and why should the defendant pay them? If she earned that money as normal income (if she had never been discriminated against) she would have payed taxes on it anyway. Isn’t it up to the government to charge less tax in this situation if they feel that making her pay is somehow unjust?