Mediaboss Marketing

While the COVID-19 relief bill brought the $15 an hour minimum wage.

Looking back in history, the fight for a minimum wage has been full of political struggle and labor conflict. Here are some notable developments in U.S. history.

The first state-level minimum wage law was passed by Massachusetts in 1912. Soon, other states followed suit over the next two decades. But the state laws were reversed by the Supreme Court in a case called Adkins v. Childrens Hospital of D.C., which ruled that a minimum wage violated employers and workers rights to liberty of contracts under the Fifth Amendment.

In 1938, at the height of the Great Depression, the first federal minimum wage was passed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act to improve workers living condition and boost their purchasing power amid the colossal disruption in the American economy. The rate was set at 25 cents per hour, which is worth about $4 today.

Since then, Congress has raised the minimum wage 22 times under 12 different presidents. Most times, Democrats held a majority when Congress approved a minimum wage increase. The current level is at $7.25 an hour, set in 2009.

States and cities have the right to set their own minimum wage standards. Now, 29 states and D.C. have minimum wages above the federal level.

Since 1938, the federal minimum wage went up bit by bit every few years. However, the increase stopped in the 1980s, mostly under the Reagan administration. At the time, America ushered in a wave of conservative thinking that bolstered the idea of the free market. The argument against increasing minimum wage is that it would result in a decrease in jobs, because businesses would be less inclined to hire more workers.

The minimum wage has caused more misery and unemployment than anything since the Great Depression, Ronald Reagan said in 1980 about the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reagan also suggested that employers should be able to pay young people at a rate lower than the federal minimum wage. He said that teenaged workers tend to be unskilled and a lower-than-minimum wage would help relieve the high youth employment rate, which was more than 18% in 1980.

In 1989, Congress passed an amendment to the 1938 law so that it applies only to businesses with a $500,000 annual revenue. It also mandates small retail businesses to pay its workers the minimum wage and overtime pay in any work week in which they either engage in commerce or make products that will be sold in another state.

The increase of federal minimum wage picked up again in the 1990s, rising from $3.35 an hour in 1989 to $5.15 an hour in 2007. That year, President George W. Bush signed into law the Fair Minimum Wage Act to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three stages over two years. It marked a victory for the Democrats who had been pushing for a change for the past decade. However, since 2009, the federal minimum wage has stagnated at $7.25 an hour, while the cost of living has become higher and higher.

In November 2012, a couple hundred fast food workers, backed by Service Employee International Union (SEIU), demonstrated under the banner of $15 in New York City. It marked the beginning of the Fight for $15 grassroots movement to demand a $15 hourly wage, a wage that people can live on.

At first, the demand to almost double the federal minimum wage was a fringe idea in Washington, even within the Democratic party. President Barack Obama endorsed a raise to $10.10 an hour in 2014. Hillary Clinton said that she favored a $12 an hour minimum wage in 2015, before endorsing the Fight for $15 effort shortly after.

The movement mainly focused at the state and city level. Seattle became the first city to adopt the $15 standard in 2014, following the victory of Ed Murray, a mayoral candidate backed by SEIU. New York and California, two large progressive states home to many of the members in the Fight for $15, also followed suit. Progressive activists then moved to moderate and conservative states like Illinois and Arizona. Since January 2014, 28 states and D.C. have raised their minimum wages.

Besides fighting on a local level, Fight for $15 also targeted big businesses like McDonalds, Walmart, and Target.

Now, the movement has long extended beyond fast food and retail. A $15 an hour minimum wage nationwide has become a mainstream idea widely embraced by the Democrats.

The most recent debate about federal minimum wage sees a divide among three camps, not conforming expected ideological or business groupings.

As for the long-held belief that a raise in minimum wage would kill jobs, the Congressional Budget Office said in February that a rise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour would result in 1.4 million job losses by 2025. Other studies have shown mixed results. Some even indicate that higher minimum wages increase employment.

That Congressional Budget Office assessment also estimated that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.

Since the beginning of 2021, 20 states have raised minimum wages. Many fast-food and retail giants, including McDonalds, Amazon, Target, and Costco have committed to paying workers at least a $15 minimum wage.

But the fight for higher pay and labor rights continues. Experts say the new battlegrounds could lie in hero pay, tipped minimum wage, and joint employment.

The pandemic has highlighted how many people in America are living close to the financial edge. For years, working one full-time job has not been enough for many minimum wage workers to get by. Should a full-time job in America guarantee a living wage? NBCLX storyteller Cody Broadway explores how the system is working against our essential workers.

Link:
The Fight Over Minimum Wage Has a Long History in the US. Here's What to Know About It - NBC 6 South Florida

Under current federal law, only men are required to register for the draft. The Supreme Court upheld 50 U.S.C. 3802(a) inRostker v. Goldberg (1981). At the time, women could not serve in combat roles. But in 2016, the Obama Administration allowed women to participate in combat roles. Subsequently, the National Coalition for Men challenged the federal law as a violation of the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment. In 2019, a federal district court judge in Houston declared the policy unconstitutional. But in 2020, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court's judgment "directly contradicts" Rostker.

The National Coalition for Men filed a cert petition on January 8. The SG's response was due on February 11. Acting SG Prelogar sought a one month extension.

This extension is requested to complete preparation of the government's response, which was delayed because of the heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter.

One month later, the Acting SG requested another extension:

This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for preparation of the government's response have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates.

What is going on here? Adam Liptak suggests that change may be afoot:

The Trump administration defended differing registration requirements in the appeals court. The Biden administration has twice sought extra time to respond to the petition seeking Supreme Court review in the case,National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, No. 20-928, and its brief is now due on April 14.

It is possible that the Biden Administration will agree with the petitioners and decline to defend the constitutionality of the statute. This move would echo the Obama administration's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor. In both cases, these laws did not run afoul of any Supreme Court precedent. Rather, subsequent practices (arguably) cast doubt on the validity of past precedents. Lower courts cannot anticipatory disregard Supreme Court precedents, but the executive branch apparently can.

But there would be one significant difference between this case, andWindsor. In 2011, the House was controlled by Republicans. As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) retained Paul Clement to intervene in the case. Now, both houses are controlled by Democrats. If DOJ sends a 530(d) notification to Congress, and there is no majority to defend the statyute, what happens? In my view, the case would be over, as there is no adversity. The federal law would not be enforced by the current administrations, but the next administration could resume enforcing it. (Good luck with rescinding millions of female registrations). Or, the Court could keep the case alive by appointing an amicus. (Hell, make it Paul Clement for nostalgia's sake. Though, this case arose from the 5th Circuit, so we would likely see a CT clerk.) And if the Court upholds the statute, the Biden administration would have to continue enforcing the regime.

Of course, Congress could also repeal this statute. But that move would require political accountability. It is much easier to decline to defend a law, and let it fall into desuetude.

The Acting SG will soon have to make another difficult decision. The Court granted review inUS v. Tsarnaev, the Boston marathon bombing case. President Biden has stated he opposes the death penalty. Adam Liptak reports:

After the appeals court ruling, lawyers for the federal government during the Trump administrationurged the Supreme Courtto hear the case.

The case presents President Biden with an early test of his stated opposition to capital punishment. Were the administration to decide not to pursue the death penalty against Mr. Tsarnaev, the Supreme Court case would become moot.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, answered generally when asked about how Mr. Biden would approach the case.

"He has grave concerns about whether capital punishment as currently implemented is consistent with the values that are fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness," Ms. Psaki said at a press briefing on Monday. "He has also expressed his horror at the events of that day and Tsarnaev's actions."

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Will his SG defend the death penalty sentence below? If he doesn't, then presumably DOJ would have to take the same position in all pending federal cases involving the death penalty. And these decisions would be final. If Biden no longer seeks the death penalty against Tsarnaev, I don't think a future President could seek to reimpose that sentence.

Yesterday, I observed that the decision to appoint an SG is extremely important. These two cases illustrate the high stakes.

See the rest here:
What will the SG do in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System? - Reason

The University of Southern California has reached a record $852 million settlement with more than 700 women who accused a former gynecologist on campus of sexually abusing them as patients and the prestigious school of trying to cover it up, attorneys said on Thursday.

The law firm representing many of the women in the case said the payout agreed to by USC and the plaintiffs marked the largest sexual abuse settlement with a university and the biggest personal injury payout by any college or university in US history.

The deal, resolving lawsuits brought by 710 women in California state court, stems from allegations against George Tyndall, who practised at USC for nearly 30 years before the private, Los Angeles-based university suspended him in 2016, then allowed him to quietly retire without immediately reporting him to the state medical board.

A separate $215 million settlement of a federal class-action case in 2018 and a more recent $50 million cluster of individual state court settlements brings the total payout USC has agreed to pay in the Tyndall scandal to $1.1 billion.

No further civil claims are outstanding.

Tyndall, who has denied wrongdoing, lost his medical license and has been charged with sexually assaulting 21 patients under the guise of gynecological treatment or exams. He has pleaded not guilty to 35 felony counts and remains free on bail. No trial date has been set.

His civil defence lawyer was not immediately available for comment.

Tyndall was technically a party to the USC settlement but lacks any funds to contribute, Vince Finaldi, a lead plaintiffs lawyer and negotiator of the deal, told Reuters.

The former physician, now in his 70s, was deposed for the civil litigation but invoked his Fifth Amendment right under the US constitution to avoid self-incrimination, Mr Finaldi said.

The flood of lawsuits brought by former patients against Tyndall and USC accused the university of negligence and complicity, asserting school officials were aware of his misconduct for years but kept him in a position to continue preying on students placed in his care.

The enormous size of this settlement speaks to the immense harm done to our clients and the culpability of USC, plaintiffs attorney John Manley said in a statement. It is a direct result of a billionaire-dominated Board of Trustees that placed fundraising, prestige and the USC Brand above the safety of vulnerable female students.

Widespread faculty and student outrage over the universitys handling of the matter after allegations against Tyndall surfaced in media accounts in 2018 led then-USC president CL Max Nikias to resign.

The scandal even prompted the Chinese government to voice deep concern over published reports that many of the alleged victims were students from China.

The USC Board of Trustees ratified Thursdays settlement, which the university said was reached with assistance from a private mediator and a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge.

Im deeply sorry for the pain experienced by these valued members of the USC community, USCs current president, Carol Folt, said in a statement. We appreciate the courage of all who came forward and hope this much-needed resolution provides some relief to the women abused by George Tyndall.

University officials have previously acknowledged failing to act on a number of complaints made against Tyndall between 2000 and 2014 but denied a deliberate cover-up.

Trustees Chair Rick Caruso, named to head the board after the scandal came to light, conceded on Thursday that the university fell short by not doing everything it could to protect those who matter to us most our students.

Individual payouts in the latest settlement would likely range from mid-six-figure sums to millions of dollars, Mr Finaldi said.

The USC settlement far exceeds the $500 million payout agreed to by Michigan State University to resolve civil claims stemming from allegations of serial sexual abuse leveled against Larry Nassar, a former USA Gymnastics team doctor on the schools staff.

Nassar was sentenced to up to 300 years in prison in a pair of 2018 trials after more than 350 women testified of abuse at his hands.

By comparison, the Los Angeles Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church paid out $660 million in 2007 to 508 victims of sex abuse by multiple members of the clergy. Reuters

See the article here:
US university to pay $1.1bn to women abused by former gynecologist - The Irish Times

A defense attorney filed a motion this week attempting to keep a jury from hearing an alleged confession of a woman who is accused of helping her boyfriend cover up the murder of a 20-year-old Fort Hood soldier almost a year ago.

Cecily Aguilar, 22, was being held without bond in the McLennan County Jail on Thursday. She is accused of helping Army Spc. Aaron Robinson, 20, dispose of the body of Vanessa Guillen after he had killed her with a hammer on April 22, 2020, according to a federal criminal complaint.

Spc. Aaron David Robinson is the man who took his own life while being a suspect in the disappearance of Spc. Vanessa Guillen, Fort Hood officials said.

During a hearing next month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske is set to rule on a 16-page motion to suppress that was filed by Aguilars defense attorney on Wednesday.

According to the motion, Aguilar made statements during an interview with police on June 30, 2020, without being advised of her Miranda rights, which would be a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The officers did not provide Aguilar (with) Miranda warnings until after three hours of questioning, the motion reads. Instead, they encouraged her to tell them about the alleged crime in order to help herself, without ever informing her that what she said could be used against her in court

Aguilars defense attorney claims that her Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure were violated before the statements were made, when police performed a traffic stop on a vehicle in which she was a passenger.

The detention morphed into an arrest. (The traffic stop) was not supported by a warrant or reasonable suspicion, according to the motion. Any evidence obtained from the illegal seizures and fruits therefrom should be suppressed.

A hearing on the motion to suppress will be held on April 27 at the federal courthouse in Waco.

Aguilar pleaded not guilty on July 14, 2020, to one count of conspiracy to tamper with evidence and two substantive counts of tampering with evidence. If convicted, she faces up to 20 years in federal prison for each count, according to the U.S. Attorneys Office, Western District of Texas.

So far, four trial dates most recently for March 8 have been set in her case. As of Thursday, no new trial date has been set.

Vanessa Guillen case

The case dates back 11 months. Guillen was reported missing on April 23, 2020.

Months later, on June 30, 2020, her remains were discovered by contractors working along the Leon River near Belton.

The criminal complaint alleges that Robinson murdered Guillen on April 22, 2020, with a hammer and that Aguilar helped him attempt to dispose of the body.

Robinson died on July 1, 2020, from a self-inflicted gunshot wound after he was confronted by Killeen police, officials said.

Aguilar initially lied to police to cover for Robinson, but later helped investigators by letting them record several phone conversations with him, according to the complaint.

Link:
Lawyer tries to throw out confession of Killeen woman charged in Vanessa Guillen case - The Killeen Daily Herald

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments Monday in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case about the union rights of farmworkers. It could impact the future of anti-discrimination law and much more.

The plaintiffs in the case are two California fruit producers who are suing over a 1975 state regulation that allows union organizers to have temporary access to an agricultural employers property during non-work hours. The laws rationale is to support workers right to unionize by allowing workers access to their workplace premises for after-hours meetings.

California law requires agricultural businesses to allow labor organizers onto their property three times a day for 120 days each year. The state contends that the regulation is necessary in the specific context of farming: farmworkers tend to be inaccessible to union organizers through other channels, and farm properties lack parking lots or public areas that other workers typically use for gathering. From Californias brief:

[Farmworkers] are highly migratory, moving to follow the harvest every few weeks or months; they often live in temporary housing, sometimes on their employers property; they frequently lack access to modern telecommunications technology; many speak only indigenous languages; and many are illiterate even in their native language. The Boards regulation authorizes a limited number of organizers to access the property of agricultural employers, for brief periods, during non-work hours, solely for the purpose of discussing organizing with employees, and only after notifying the Board and the employer.

Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company sued to have the law invalidated, and their argument is based on land use. They say that the law allowing union organizers to meet with workers on their property is an easement that amounts to a per se taking something that would require compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

The after-hours union meetings dont disrupt the employers businesses, and the state of California isnt actually taking the property so to make a Fifth-Amendment argument, the plaintiffs needed to frame their loss as interference with a guarantee that is constitutionally protected. They chose the right to exclude unwanted persons. In other words, the California unionizing regulation deprives the owners of their inherent property right to kick people off their land.

A panel of the Ninth Circuit sided with California, as did the district court. The panel said that because the regulation didnot amount to a physical taking because it did notallow random members of the public to unpredictably traverse their property 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.The panel also ruled that the statute wasnt a regulatory taking because the only property right affected was the right to exclude and thats simply not enough.

Now, SCOTUS will decide whether the Fifth Amendment protects a right to exclude on par with other inherent property rights. If the justices side with the landowners and agree that the regulation amounts to a taking, it would mean the regulation cannot continue to operate without California paying compensation for its taking of the land. Thats novel in itself, but theres far more drama to be had outside the arena of farming and unionizing.

The fruit-producer plaintiffs argue that the right to exclude should take its rightful place among the most sacred of protected interests: fundamental rights.

When a right is fundamental, any law abridging that right triggers the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. Accordingly, a state regulation that interferes with a fundamental right must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest in order to pass constitutional muster. In short, state regulations fail almost always fail this test, because the right being protected has been deemed basically untouchable. (Other fundamental rights include the right to marry, the right to privacy, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.)

In an email to Law&Crime,Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Wen Fa, who represents the petitioner fruit sellers in the litigation, explained his clients position in the case:

The Constitution prohibits government from requiring you to allow unwanted strangers into your property. The California regulation here is unconstitutional because it forces property owners to allow unwanted union activists onto their property, and violates the property owners fundamental right to exclude trespassers.

However, Aaron Tang, a constitutional law professor and former clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, warned in a Washington Post piece Thursday that as devastating as a ruling for the plaintiffs would be in the context of unions, its real danger lies outside far outside the context of employment law.

Tang writes:

The disputethreatenshavoc just as great outside the union context. Considerstate lawsthat permit child protection inspectors to make unannounced home visits. Now suppose a homeowner suspected of abuse or neglect wants to keep the inspector out. Under the challengers logic, such individuals would have a Fifth Amendment right to do so unless the government paid the suspected abuser to access the property. The same problem would ensnarenursing home visitsandfood safety inspections.

Indeed, we have seen anti-discrimination ordinances challenged on the grounds that they interfere with First Amendment rights; a ruling that the right to exclude is fundamental would mean an entirely separate basis for bringing legal challenges, rooted in property law (a legal landscape far less politically-charged than religious freedom). The cases potential for broad impact is underscored by the more than 30 amicus briefs submitted to the Court by interested yet uninvolved parties.

As for the justices, their position in the case poses some intriguing questions. The Court decided a landmark union case in 2018; it ruled that an employee who is not a member of a union could not be forced to pay union fees for the collective bargaining done on his behalf. In that case, conservative justice Samuel Alitopenned a decision joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. JusticesSotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented.

A conservative majority might similarly side against the pro-union ordinance in the Cedar Point litigation. However, if decided on Fifth Amendment grounds, such a decision threatens to create just the kind of chaos the conservative justices usually endeavor to avoid.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 22, 2021.

[Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Excerpt from:
SCOTUS to Decide Whether There Is a Fundamental Right to Kick People Off Your Property - Law & Crime