DOCSLIB.ORG

Attorney General Balderas Files Brief in Support of Challenge to President’S New, Illegal Travel Ban

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attorney General Balderas Files Brief in Support of Challenge to President’S New, Illegal Travel Ban FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: James Hallinan March 13, 2017 (505) 660-2216 Attorney General Balderas Files Brief in Support of Challenge to President’s New, Illegal Travel Ban Albuquerque, NM - Attorney General Hector Balderas filed a brief today in support of Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s revised executive order restricting travel and refugee resettlement. The amicus brief, filed by 13 states and the District of Columbia, requests that the federal court hearing Hawaii’s lawsuit enter a nationwide injunction preventing the implementation and enforcement of the executive order that will go into effect on Thursday. The brief explains that despite the Trump Administration’s revision of its original executive order to remove obviously unconstitutional provisions, the new executive order remains an unconstitutional attempt to restrict travel from six predominately-Muslim countries and to suspend completely the nation’s refugee resettlement program. “Discriminating against people for their religion is un-American and unconstitutional, and as such, I will fight President Trump’s new travel ban in court alongside other states,” said Attorney General Balderas. “Additionally, New Mexico cannot afford to have our hospitals, research facilities and universities negatively impacted by this illegal order. The states’ amicus brief supports the right of states to sue to challenge the executive order. It describes the harm that states are suffering and will continue to suffer as a result of President Trump’s immigration actions, including preventing states from hiring doctors and professors and economic losses from reduced travel and tourism. The states also explain that the executive order’s discrimination on the basis of religion and national origin thwarts the states’ efforts to ensure equal protection under the law. Please see attached for a copy of the brief. # # # Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 154-3 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 120 PageID #: 2386 ADAMS MIYASHIRO KREK A Limited Liability Law Partnership DUANE R. MIYASHIRO 6513 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1700 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: 808.777.2900 Facsimile: 808.664-8626 [email protected] Attorney for STATES OF ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA and THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LISA MADIGAN Attorney General of Illinois DAVID L. FRANKLIN* Solicitor General 100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone No.: (312) 814-5376 Facsimile No.: (312) 814-2275 [email protected] *Pro Hac Vice motion pending Attorney for the STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAIʻI STATE OF HAWAI‘I, and ISMAIL CIVIL NO. 17-00050-DKW-KSC ELSHIKH, BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF Plaintiffs, ILLINOIS AND OTHER STATES; EXHIBITS A-K; CERTIFICATE OF vs. COMPLIANCE; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United [Caption continued] States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 1 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 154-3 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 120 PageID #: 2387 HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; REX TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND VIRGINIA, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 2 Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 154-3 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 120 PageID #: 2388 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) INTERESTS OF AMICI ............................................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. The Revised Order Will Inflict Concrete Proprietary Injuries On The States ......................................................................................................... 4 A. The revised Order will harm state colleges and universities and their faculty and students. ............................................................... 5 B. The revised Order will disrupt staffing and research at state medical institutions. .................................................................... 13 C. The revised Order will reduce States’ tax revenues and harm our economies more broadly. ..................................................... 15 II. The Revised Order Will Harm The States’ Quasi-Sovereign And Sovereign Interests In Protecting Our Residents And Enforcing Our Laws. ..................................................................................... 19 III. A Nationwide Temporary Restraining Order Is Necessary To Provide Complete Relief. ............................................................................................ 26 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 27 i Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 154-3 Filed 03/13/17 Page 4 of 120 PageID #: 2389 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) ACLU of Ill. v. City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1986) ........................... 21 ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cty, 354 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2003), aff’d, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) ....................................................................................... 21 Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex. rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) ................................................................................................... 4 Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) ............................................................ 26 Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 21 Davis v. E.P.A., 348 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 3 Louhghalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154-NMG (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2017) ................ 7 Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007) .......................................................... 3 Parents’ Ass’n of P.S. 16 v. Quinones, 803 F.2d 1235 (2d Cir. 1986) .................... 21 Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) ..................................... 27 Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................... 1, 26, 27 Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR (W.D. Wash.) .............................. 3, 18, 19 STATUTES AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Page(s) 740 ILCS 23/5 (a)(1) ................................................................................................ 20 775 ILCS 5/1-102 (A) .............................................................................................. 20 775 ILCS 5/10-104 (A)(1) ....................................................................................... 20 Cal. Const. art. I, § 4, 7-8, 31 ................................................................................... 20 i Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 154-3 Filed 03/13/17 Page 5 of 120 PageID #: 2390 Cal. Const. art. I, § 7 ................................................................................................ 20 Cal. Const. art. I, § 8 ................................................................................................ 20 Cal. Const. art. I, § 31 .............................................................................................. 20 Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11135-11137, 12900 et seq. .................................................... 20 Cal. Civ. Code § 51, subd. (b) .................................................................................. 20 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 ........................................................................................ 20 Ill. Const. art. I, § 3 .................................................................................................. 20 Ill. Const. art. I, § 17 ................................................................................................ 20 5 Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 784, 4551-4634 ........................................................... 20 Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B, §§ 1, 4 ............................................................................... 20 Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93, § 102 ..................................................................................... 20 Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606 ..................................................................... 20 Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.006(1) ................................................................................... 20 R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-7(1)(i) .................................................................................. 20 9 Vt. Stat. Ann. §§ 4500-07 ..................................................................................... 20 21 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 495. .......................................................................................... 20 ii Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 154-3 Filed 03/13/17 Page 6 of 120 PageID #: 2391 INTERESTS OF AMICI The States of Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia submit this brief as amici curiae in support of the State of Hawaii’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Investigations MASTER
    Conducting Corporate Investigations ACC Europe’s 17th Annual Conference June 1, 2010 Vienna, Austria Presented by: Stephen J. Hirschfeld 233 Wilshire Boulevard 727 Sansome Street 5450 Longley Lane Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Reno, NV 89511 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (415) 835-9000 (775) 826-7100 (310) 255-0705 www.cdhklaw.com ©2010 Curiale Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP SPEAKER Curiale Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP CURIALE HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP advises and assists private and public employers of all sizes on issues and claims arising out of the employer-employee relationship and on union-related matters. Its attorneys regularly handle litigation involving wrongful termination, discrimination and sexual harassment, and counsel universities and companies on discipline and discharge, workplace privacy, drug abuse and testing, safety, personnel policies, wage and hour matters, and other employment-related issues. As part of their “preventive” practice, the firm's attorneys present training seminars on how to manage within the law and avoid claims that can lead to costly litigation. STEPHEN J. HIRSCHFELD is a founding partner in the San Francisco office of Curiale Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP. He is also the founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Employment Law Alliance, the world’s largest network of labor and employment lawyers. Mr. Hirschfeld practices in the areas of labor and employment law and related litigation. He has substantial experience in wrongful termination and discrimination litigation, employment law counseling, collective bargaining, labor arbitrations, union organizing issues, and training management to minimize litigation and human resource problems. Mr. Hirschfeld is a member of the Bar Association of San Francisco, the State Bar of California (Labor and Employment Law Section), the Missouri Bar and the National Association of College and University Attorneys, and a Fellow of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 Employment Law Issues in the Asia-Pacific
    TOP 10 EMPLOYMENT LAW ISSUES IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC MARCH 2018 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES 2 AUSTRALIA 5 BANGLADESH 9 CAMBODIA 12 CHINA 19 HONG KONG 21 INDIA 25 INDONESIA 31 JAPAN 34 KOREA 37 MALAYSIA 40 MYANMAR 44 NEW ZEALAND 53 PHILIPPINES 55 SINGAPORE 61 SRI LANKA 67 TAIWAN 73 THAILAND 76 VIETNAM 80 INTRODUCTION WongPartnership LLP, together with Asia-Pacific members of the Employment Law Alliance ("ELA") have come together to prepare this report on the significant employment law issues and trends across the Asia-Pacific which we have seen in 2017 and expect to see in 2018. From this exercise, we notice that across Asia-Pacific, similar employment law issues arise. These similar threads across multiple jurisdictions are not just interesting random observations but a highly relevant one to businesses and practitioners alike. This knowledge allows one to formulate general employment policies across jurisdictions, thereby ensuring a consistent approach to the treatment of employees within one larger organisation. It also arms one with the ability to understand and properly identify issues, even where they relate to jurisdictions other than the ones we are most familiar with. For the purpose of this report, we asked firms across 18 different jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific to list the top 10 issues in their jurisdiction and observed the following trends across many of the regions: 1. Measures have been implemented to address issues relating to employees under term contracts and independent contractors; 2. Increased collective bargaining and unionisation activity; 3. Having measures to manage a global workforce/foreign employees; 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Employment Law Update Legal Issues Facing City & County Governments May 5, 2018
    Employment Law Update Legal Issues Facing City & County Governments May 5, 2018 David J. Canupp Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C. 2101 West Clinton Ave., Suite 102 Huntsville, AL 35805 256‐535‐1100 [email protected] www.LanierFord.com © 2018 1 Agenda .Handling harassment and discrimination during “#MeToo” era. .Service dogs and emotional support animals in the workplace. .Sexual orientation updates, one big Supreme Court case, and maybe a constitutional amendment. .State, county, city employees & unions. 2 Employment Law Update 2018 1 The Difference a Year Makes . The election of Donald Trump was anticipated to slow or perhaps reverse 8 years of rapid advancement in employee rights (and employer risks). President Trump has appointed new members to the EEOC to fill several vacancies, which will change the majority of the board from Democrat to Republican. Trump nominated Janet Dhillon as a more “business friendly” chairperson (no action since October 2017). 3 The Difference (cont.) . Trump froze Obama‐era rule requiring large employers to disclose data on workers’ wages broken down by gender and ethnicity. AG Jeff Sessions issued a directive requiring federal agencies to accommodate religious objections to requirements that contradict their faith. Justice Department changed position to now contend that Title VII does not bar transgender discrimination. Department of Labor dropped its appeal of a federal court order enjoining changes to the FLSA. 4 Employment Law Update 2018 2 October 2017: #MeToo . On October 15, 2017, actress Alyssa Milano encouraged spreading the hashtag #MeToo, as part of an awareness campaign in order to reveal the ubiquity of sexual abuse and harassment.
    [Show full text]
  • Employment & Labour
    Employment & Labour Law 2019 Seventh Edition Contributing Editor: Charles Wynn-Evans Global Legal Insights Employment & Labour Law 2019, Seventh Edition Contributing Editor: Charles Wynn-Evans Published by Global Legal Group GLOBAL LEGAL INSIGHTS – EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR LAW 2019, SEVENTH EDITION Contributing Editor Charles Wynn-Evans, Dechert LLP Editor Sam Friend Senior Editors Caroline Collingwood & Rachel Williams Group Consulting Editor Alan Falach Publisher Rory Smith We are extremely grateful for all contributions to this edition. Special thanks are reserved for Charles Wynn-Evans for all of his assistance. Published by Global Legal Group Ltd. 59 Tanner Street, London SE1 3PL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 207 367 0720 / URL: www.glgroup.co.uk Copyright © 2018 Global Legal Group Ltd. All rights reserved No photocopying ISBN 978-1-912509-49-2 ISSN 2050-2117 This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice. Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication. This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations. The information contained herein is accurate as of the date of publication. Printed and bound by TJ International, Trecerus Industrial Estate, Padstow, Cornwall, PL28 8RW December 2018 CONTENTS Preface
    [Show full text]
  • COMP TIME BILLS OFF TARGET Existing Labor Law Already Allows the Flexibility That Employers Say They Want for Their Workers
    Economic Policy Institute Brief ing Paper 1660 L Street, NW • Suite 1200 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • 202/775-8810 • http://epinet.org COMP TIME BILLS OFF TARGET Existing labor law already allows the flexibility that employers say they want for their workers by Lonnie Golden The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is the principal federal law that regulates work hours and limits the expansion of the work week. By requiring employers to pay a 50% wage premium for work beyond 40 hours in a week, the act successfully made a 40-hour work week the norm, both legally and culturally. It is, in fact, the original and maybe the most important “family-friendly” law enacted by the federal government, since it established the principle that employees should have a normal work week short enough to leave ample time for leisure, rest, and family. Yet employer organizations, which generally opposed enactment of the FLSA and have sought to limit or weaken it for more than 60 years, now allege that the law itself is somehow an impediment to family- friendly work schedules. Since 1995, legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to “modernize” the FLSA by changing the standard work week, overtime pay rules, and classifications of exemptions, on the presumption that the FLSA has become “outdated” (Finegold 1998; Abbott 1999; Wilson 2001; Bird 2000). In particular, bills have been introduced (S. 317, the Working Families Flexibility Act, and H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act) that would legalize the substitution of compensatory time off for overtime pay in the private sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Discourse and the Economy of Racialization in the Workplace Terry Smith
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law American University Law Review Volume 57 | Issue 3 Article 1 2008 Speaking Against Norms: Public Discourse and the Economy of Racialization in the Workplace Terry Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Smith, Terry. “Speaking Against Norms: Public Discourse and the Economy of Racialization in the Workplace.” American University Law Review 57, no.3 (February, 2008): 523- 584. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Speaking Against Norms: Public Discourse and the Economy of Racialization in the Workplace Abstract Free speech controversies erupt from reactions to outlier voices, and these voices are often those of subordinated citizens such as racial minorities. Employing the tools of narrative, interviews with litigants and subjects, and interdisciplinary analysis of case law, Professor Terry Smith probes whether the social inequality of government employees of color affects the rigor of the First Amendment protection afforded their speech. Professor Smith argues that all public sector employees lack sufficient protection because their speech typically does not receive the highest constitutional scrutiny and because of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garcetti v.
    [Show full text]
  • LAURA PASQUALONE Managing Partner of the Phoenix Office
    LAURA PASQUALONE Managing Partner of the Phoenix Office [email protected] D: 602.262.5362 Phoenix Laura is valued by clients for her strategic and client-centric Practices counsel on matters involving employment law compliance, ■ Litigation and Disputes ■ Labor and Employment litigation prevention, and litigation defense. ■ Human Resources Consulting ■ Trade Secrets, Unfair Competition, Laura Pasqualone is a partner in the firm’s Labor and Employment and Litigation and Non-Competes practice groups, practicing primarily in the areas of employment law and business litigation. She regularly advises employers on compliance with a wide variety of Industries federal, state, and local employment laws. She also provides emergency advice, ■ Aerospace and Defense preventative counseling, training, and ongoing employment guidance to human ■ Banking and Financial Services resources directors and in-house counsel. In addition, her practice consists of ■ Construction litigating cases involving claims of discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and ■ Restaurants, Retail, and Hospitality breach of contract. Laura has significant experience in cases involving the ■ Retail enforceability of restrictive covenants, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition. She regularly presents on employment law “hot topics” to hundreds of national and international employers and human resources representatives. Employment Litigation and Administrative Proceedings Laura defends clients in litigation against claims brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She has represented clients in both federal and state court, in arbitration, before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Arizona Civil Rights Division, and the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
    [Show full text]
  • Louis P. Dilorenzo
    Louis P. DiLorenzo Member [email protected] One Lincoln Center 600 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor 110 West Fayette Street New York, NY 10016-1915 Syracuse, NY 13202-1355 (646) 253-2315 (315) 218-8315 (646) 253-2301 fax (315) 218-8100 fax Education Profile University at Buffalo School Louis has practiced labor and employment law for more than 40 years and is of Law (J.D. 1976) managing member of the firm's New York City office. Syracuse University (B.A. 1973) Louis represents employers and management in all aspects of labor and employment law. His areas of experience include collective bargaining, workplace Bar/Court Admissions investigations, NLRB proceedings, labor audits, supervisory training, wage and New York hour issues, arbitration, jury trials in both state and federal courts, wage incentive U.S. Supreme Court plans, OFCCP audits and proceedings, employment litigation before the EEOC and the Human Rights Division and alternative dispute resolution techniques. Louis also Practices serves several insurance companies as panel counsel (e.g., AIG and Chubb) with Municipalities respect to employment litigation matters. From 2002-2004, he served as General Employee Benefits and Counsel and Secretary to Agway, Inc., a Fortune 500 Company. Executive Compensation Louis co-authored the FDCC Quarterly article entitled Employers' Settlement Environmental and Energy Agreements with Departing Employees Under Attack, Vol. 57, No. 3, Spring 2007. Health Care He also co-authored a complete guide for business managers and HR Labor and Employment professionals written in plain English entitled, What Every Business Manager and Litigation HR Professional Should Know About ... Federal Labor and Employment Laws and Public Finance a two volume treatise entitled Corporate Counseling (1988) and was a contributing Higher Education author to Public Sector Labor Law (1988).
    [Show full text]
  • Robert N. Holtzman
    Robert N. Holtzman Partner New York T 212.715.9513 F 212.715.8035 [email protected] Robert N. Holtzman represents employers in employment law and executive compensation matters and is Co-chair of Kramer Levin’s Executive Compensation practice. Robert counsels employers regarding the full range of legal and business issues that touch upon or concern the employment relationship, including advisory matters involving investigations of discrimination and whistleblower complaints, the design and implementation of appropriate policies and practices and employment issues that arise in connection with corporate transactions. He also designs and conducts training of managers and other employees. When disputes arise, Robert represents employers in litigation in federal and state court, as well as in administrative proceedings and arbitrations, and in connection with virtually every type of claim that may be asserted by employees – discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, gender, sexual preference, disability and national origin; retaliation; whistleblower claims; claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law; breach of contract; enforcement of restrictive covenants; wrongful discharge; and a wide variety of tort claims. He also has represented employers and senior executives in class action litigations alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination and wage and hour violations. Robert advises and represents companies and executives in connection with the design, implementation, drafting and negotiation of executive compensation arrangements, including employment, severance/separation, change-in-control, noncompetition, non-solicitation and nondisclosure agreements. He also represents private equity funds and companies in the design and drafting of equity and other incentive compensation arrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • Employment Law
    Employment Law Employment Law Cyprus Employment Law Cyprus employment law is a mixture of statute and case law. Statutory “ Elias Neocleous provisions govern certain aspects of employment such as termination, working hours, annual leave and social insurance contributions. & Co LLC is the Nonetheless, every employment relationship is contractual in nature exclusive Cyprus and to the extent that any of its aspects are not regulated by specific member of the legal provisions, general contract law applies. Employment Employment law in Cyprus is generally perceived as a form of social legislation, a term commonly used to describe statutory provisions Law Alliance” which protect weaker members of the society. Employee or Self-Employed? This distinction is very important for determining liability for taxes and social insurance contributions and, most important, statutory rights and benefits applicable only to employees. The engagement of workers as independent contractors, on the other hand, is governed exclusively by general principles of contract law.. To determine whether a person is an employee or self-employed, all the facts and circumstances of the relationship must be taken into account, not only the contents of a written agreement, with particular emphasis on the overall integration and economic realities between the contracting parties. Employment Contracts An employment contract may be for a fixed term or an indefinite term. As a general rule, employment under a fixed term contract is considered to automatically terminate upon expiration of its term. However, termination will not be considered lawful at the end of a fixed term if the Industrial Disputes Court has reason to consider that the contract was actually for an indefinite period, such as in the case of long term employment through a series of fixed term contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • Panelist Bios
    Academic Biographies of Panelists and Moderators J. Philippe Abraham is first vice president of New York State United Teachers, overseeing the union’s Member Benefits and Accounting Departments, as well as NYSUT’s social justice efforts. Elected in April 2017, Abraham is NYSUT’s first higher education member to serve as a statewide officer. He came to NYSUT after serving for six years as the elected statewide vice president for professionals of United University Professions, NYSUT’s largest higher education affiliate representing faculty and staff at the State University of New York. In July 2016, Abraham was elected as an at-large representative for higher education on the National Education Association’s Board of Directors. In October 2017, he was elected a vice president of the American Federation of Teachers. Abraham, on leave from the University at Albany, was twice elected to UUP’s Executive Board. He chaired and co-chaired several statewide UUP committees, including Legal Defense, Affirmative Action, and the Committee on Latino Affairs. He also served as a member of the UUP Negotiations Team and chief negotiator. On the UUP chapter level, Abraham was one of three elected senators representing UAlbany on SUNY’s Faculty Senate. He was elected to three terms as the chapter vice president for professionals. He is president of the Albany/Capital District Chapter of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, LCLAA. Abraham earned a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish Education and a Master of Arts in Spanish American Literature, both from UAlbany. He is a graduate of the NYSUT Leadership Institute, the New York State AFL-CIO Cornell Union Leadership Institute and NEA’s Emerging Leader Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Employment Law Dodd-Frank Act Expands Whistleblower Protections
    Employment Law December 2010 In this Issue Dodd-Frank Act Expands Whistleblower Protections 1 Dodd-Frank Act Expands Whistleblower Protections In an effortUp to encourage thosedate with inside knowledge to assist the government in prosecuting those who have violated 2 Accommodating Muslim Employees securities laws, and to provide whistleblowers with expanded 4 SOX Retaliation Claims: Recent protection from retaliation, President Obama signed the Dodd- Developments Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) on July 21, 2010. Given the enhanced whistleblower 6 Adverse Employment Actions: protections provided by the Act, it is vital that companies have Be Consistent and Truthful When in place a strong compliance program and an effective system Providing Reasons for the reporting of financial misconduct and investigation 7 California Court Narrowly Interprets What of such reports. Note that the Securities and Exchange Constitutes an “Employment Loss” Under Commission on November 3, 2010 proposed regulations Federal WARN Act implementing certain provisions of the Act but which address only the bounty program discussed just below. 8 Recent Business Immigration Law New Whistleblower Incentive Program Developments To motivate whistleblowers to report fraudulent activity to the 9 Break Time for Nursing Mothers government, the Act amends the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by adding a “bounty” provision designed to provide 10 Executive Compensation and Corporate lucrative monetary incentives for individuals who provide Governance Update information to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 12 New York Court of Appeals Limits Who leading to a successful enforcement action. The Act requires the May Bring Claims Under the New York SEC, in any action in which it imposes sanctions in excess of State and City Human Rights Laws $1 million, to compensate whistleblowers who provide “original information” with between 10% and 30% of the monetary sanctions.
    [Show full text]