April 2010

  • April 22, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Rena Steinzor, President, Center for Progressive Reform, Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law
    On the list of federal agencies decimated by the Bush administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) deserves to be placed right near the top. Here is an agency that for decades has struggled with a tiny budget to get the job done, only to be taken over for eight years by a group of industry representatives dedicated to lowering the cost of doing business. What's left for the Obama administration -- and David Michaels, the head of OSHA -- has been what I'd technically define as a "mess."

    It's in that context that a group of Member Scholars of the Center for Progressive Reform released Workers at Risk: Regulatory Dysfunction at OSHA. We wanted to examine what has gone so wrong at the agency, and explore what the Obama administration can do within existing law to get the agency on track. (Legislative changes to the OSH Act would be useful as well, but that's for another day's discussion).

    In its very early years, OSHA acted with great vigor, establishing important standards for occupational health and safety that have prevented hundreds of thousands of injuries and illnesses. But the agency has not aged gracefully. In the late 1970s, the ratio of federal inspectors to federally protected workers was about 1 to 30,000. Today, an OSHA inspector covers more than 60,000 workers, and federal and state officials cannot be expected to inspect even a small fraction of U.S. worksites in any given year.

    The agency's rulemaking staff struggle to produce health and safety standards that can withstand industry legal challenges. In the last decade, in fact, OSHA has dropped more standards from its regulatory agenda than it has finalized.

    The construction crane safety rule is a perfect example of the broken process: it's taken the agency about a decade and a half and we still don't have a final regulation. By OSHA's estimates, 89 people are killed and 263 are injured each year in construction crane incidents. The existing safety standards haven't changed since 1971, even though there have been major technological changes since then. By the mid-1990s, industry itself began petitioning OSHA for stronger and more comprehensive regulations, and in 2004 a committee of industry, labor, and government representatives reached agreement on a draft proposed rule. But it was only a few weeks ago that OSHA sent a draft final rule to OMB for review.

  • April 21, 2010

    ACS is providing a limited number of fellowships for junior public interest lawyers to attend the 2010 ACS National Convention. The fellowships are available for attorneys working in the government and public interest sectors who have been in practice for 5 years or less.

    The 2010 ACS National Convention will take place at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC from June 17 - 19. Recipients will receive registration for the convention, lodging at the Renaissance Mayflower and a stipend for travel.

    The ACS National Convention provides unparalleled networking opportunities for progressive lawyers. As at last year's convention, there will be networking time following each panel discussion, and fellowship recipients will be able to meet leaders from their respective practice areas, as well as leaders from their geographic area. 

    To strengthen ties between fellowship recipients and ACS, and engage them in the work of the organization, we ask that recipients join ACS at the regular public interest rate ($25) and do at least 2 of the following:

    • Judge 2010 moot court briefs
    • Recruit 5 new paid members at any level
    • Mentor a student

    To apply, please click 2010 Fellowship Application and complete the simple online application.

    Applications must be received by April 30.

    Please pass this information on to public interest attorneys that may be interested in this opportunity.

  • April 21, 2010

    The Senate confirmed D.C. magistrate judge Marisa Demeo to the area's Superior Court last last night. The 66-32 vote fell largely along party-lines. 

    Demeo drew more opposition than is usual of nominees to the capital's local trial court, reports the Blog of the Legal Times (BLT). "[M]any Republicans opposed Demeo because of her opposition to [Miguel] Estrada and her other work during seven years as a lawyer and lobbyist for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund," the BLT states.

    While working at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Demeo represented the group's interest in opposing the confirmation of Estrada, nominated in 2001 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Democrats filibustered Estrada's nomination for the administration's failure to release documents concerning his work in the Solicitor General's office, and Estrada eventually withdrew from consideration.

  • April 21, 2010
    The Obama administration is reversing a policy that critics said made it easier for public schools and colleges to ignore a federal law, Title IX, which requires equal opportunities for women athletes. In 2005, the Bush administration issued a policy permitting schools to simply use a survey "to prove a lack of interest in starting a new women's sport [program] and encouraged schools to consider a non-response to the questionnaire as disinterest," USA Today reported.

    The reversal of the policy now means that schools "must now provide stronger evidence that they offer equal opportunities for athletic participation under the federal Title IX gender equality law," the newspaper reported.

    In a press statement, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said:

    There is no doubt that Title IX has dramatically increased athletic, academic, and employment opportunities for women and girls, and educational institutions have made big strides in providing equal opportunities in sports. Yet discrimination continues to exist in college athletic programs-and we should be vigilant in enforcing the law and protecting this important civil right.

  • April 20, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Dina Lassow, Senior Counsel, National Women's Law Center
    April 20 marks Equal Pay Day, recognizing that women today still earn, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men, which has been well publicized. The selection of April 20 as Equal Pay Day highlights the meaning of this wage gap - it is the day in 2010 when the average woman's wages catch up to her male counterpart's salary from the prior year. In other words, the average woman working full-time has to work almost four months more to make the same amount as the average man. The situation is even worse for women of color when race and gender are considered together. In 2008, African American women working full-time earned only 61 percent of the wages of white, non-Hispanic men, and Hispanic women earned just 52 percent of the wages of white, non-Hispanic men.

    It has been illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work since 1963, when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act. The following year, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred discrimination in employment - including pay discrimination-on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. Nevertheless, the wage gap persists.

    To put it simply, better remedies are needed for sex discrimination in employment. The recently enacted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (President Obama signed the Act in early 2009, pictured left) restored the right to sue for as long as the employee continues to receive discriminatorily low pay checks-not only within 180 days of the initial discriminatory pay decision, as the Supreme Court had held in Lilly Ledbetter's case against Goodyear Tire & Rubber. The Ledbetter Act was only the first step towards addressing pay disparities for women. The next critical step is the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives in January 2009 and is pending in the Senate, would move the ball forward by strengthening protections against pay discrimination. It amends the Equal Pay Act by, among other things, removing impediments that have developed in the caselaw to proving that a woman is being paid less for substantially equal work. And it would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for sharing salary information with their coworkers. The Paycheck Fairness Act would also improve the collection of data that would help identify discriminatory pay practices and provide funds for training programs to help women and girls learn to negotiate better compensation packages.

    In this tough economy, Equal Pay Day provides a serious reminder of how much needs to be done to end pay discrimination, so that women can better support themselves and their families.