[
Andrews R., Moroko R., Employment-At-Will in New York Remains Essentially Unchanged after a Century of Refinements, “N.Y. St. B.J.” 1999, vol. 71-OCT.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Andrias K., Sachs B., Constructing Countervailing Power: Law and Organizing in an Era of Political Inequality, “Yale L.J. 546” 2021, vol. 130.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Arnow-Richman R., Modifying At-Will Employment Contracts, “B.C. L. Rev.” 2016, vol. 57.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barnes T., Making the Bird Sing: Remedial Notice Reading Requirements and the Efficacy of NLRB Remedies, “Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.” 2015, vol. 36.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bingham L., Employment Arbitration: The Repeat Player Effect, “Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J.” 1997, vol. 1.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bingham L., On Repeat Players, Adhesive Contracts, and the Use of Statistics in Judicial Review of Employment Arbitration Awards, “McGeorge L. Rev.” 1998, vol. 29.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bodah M., Schneider M., Politics, Ideology, and Adjudication: The German Federal Labor Court and the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, “Comp. Lab. L. & Pol’y J.” 2014, vol. 36.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bodie M., Labor Interests and Corporate Power, “B.U. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 99.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Broome S., An Unconscionable Application of the Unconscionability Doctrine: How the California Courts are Circumventing the Federal Arbitration Act, “Hastings Bus. L.J.” 2006, vol. 3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brudney J., Forsaken Heroes: Covid-19 and Frontline Essential Workers, “Fordham Urb. L.J.” 2020, vol. 48.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Byrd R., When Arbitration Agreement Provisions Time Travel: Illusory Promises And Continued At-Will Employment In Baker, “Mo. L. Rev.” 2015, vol. 80.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Colvin A., An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes, “J. of Empirical Legal Stud.” 2011, vol. 8.10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01200.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Compa L., Not Dead Yet: Preserving Labor Law Strengths while Exploring New Labor Law Strategies, “UC Irvine L. Rev.” 2014, vol. 4.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Corbett W., “You’re Fired!”: The Common Law Should Respond with the Refashioned Tort of Abusive Discharge, “Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.” 2020, vol. 41.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cremades B., Good Faith in International Arbitration, “Am. U. Int’l L. Rev.” 2012, vol. 27.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dahlstrom E., ERISA Section 510 should be Interpreted to Cover Internal, Unsolicited Employee Complaints, “ABA J. Lab. & Emp. L.” 2011, vol. 26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dalrymple E., Would You Like Fries with that Non-Compete? Why Restrictive Covenants Should not be Enforced Against Low Wage Workers, “Wayne St. U. J. Bus. L.” 2020, vol. 3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dannin E., From Dictator Game to Ultimatum Game… and Back Again: The Judicial Impasse Amendments, “U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.” 2004, vol. 6.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dannin E., NLRA Values, Labor Values, American Values, “Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.” 2005, vol. 26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Davidson S., Determining Employment Discrimination Case Merits under State And Federal Law, “Aspatore” 2012, vol. 2012 WL 3058210.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
DeMichele M., Bales R., Unilateral-Modification Provisions in Employment Arbitration Agreements, “Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J.” 2006, vol. 24.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Drummonds H., Beyond the Employee Free Choice Act: Unleashing the States in Labor-Management Relations Policy, 19 “Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y” 2009, vol. 19.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Drummonds H., Reforming Labor Law by Reforming Labor Law Preemption Doctrine to Allow the States to Make More Labor Relations Policy, “La. L. Rev.” 2009, vol. 70.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eaton L., Arbitration Agreements in Labor and Employment Contracts: Well within the Reach of the FAA, “J. Disp. Resol.” 2002, vol. 2002.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Enger N., Offers You Can’t Refuse: Post-Hire Noncompete Agreement Insertions and Procedural Unconscionability Doctrine, “Wis. L. Rev. ” 2020, vol. 2020.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fisk C., Pulver A., First Contract Arbitration and the Employee Free Choice Act, “La. L. Rev.” 2009, vol. 70.10.2139/ssrn.1410220
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Frankel R., Concepcion And Mis-Concepcion: Why Unconscionability Survives The Supreme Court’s Arbitration Jurisprudence, “J. Disp. Resol.” 2014, vol. 2014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gardner A., George R.R. Martin’s Faith Militant in Modern America: The Establishment Clause and a State’s Ability to Delegate Policing Powers to Private Police Forces Operated by Religious Institutions, “Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J.” 2020, vol. 29.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ghaffary S., Kantrowitz A., “Don’t be evil” isn’t a normal company value. But Google isn’t a normal company. Vox, (Feb. 16, 2021) https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/2/16/22280502/google-dont-be-evil-land-of-the-giants-podcast.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Giesbrecht-McKee J., The Fairness Problem: Mandatory Arbitration in Employment Contracts, “Willamette L. Rev.” 2014, vol. 50.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Glynn M., #Timesup for Confidential Employment Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims, “Geo. Wash. L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 88.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon J., Silence for Sale, “Ala. L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 71.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gross J., Yet Another Reappraisal of the Taft-Hartley Act Emergency Injunctions, “U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.” 2005, vol. 7.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Grundmann S., Mazeaud D., General Clauses and Standards in European Contract Law: Comparative Law, EC Law and Contract Law Codification, The Hague 2005.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hengemuhle L., Striving for Consistency: The Battle of Jurisdiction in Enforcing Arbitration Awards, “B.C. L. Rev. E-Supplement” 2018, vol. 59.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hodges A., Employee Voice In Arbitration, “Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J.” 2018, vol. 22.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hodges A., Trilogy Redux: Using Arbitration to Rebuild the Labor Movement, “Minn. L. Rev.” 2014, vol. 98.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hogg M.A., The Implication of Terms in Fact: Good Faith, Contextualism and Interpretation, “Geo. Wash. L. Rev.” 2017, vol. 85.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horton D., The Arbitration Rules: Procedural Rulemaking by Arbitration Providers, “Minn. L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 105.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Iannaccone C., Spada G., Silversten R., Arbitration and Employment Disputes: Drafting to Maximize Employer Protection, “ACCA Docket” 2000, vol. 18, no. 2.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kaspar D., Stallworth L., The Impact of a Grievant’s Offer of Apology and The Decision-Making Process of Labor Arbitrators: A Case Analysis, “Harv. Negot. L. Rev.” 2012, vol. 17.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LaJeunesse R.Jr., The Controversial “Card-Check” Bill, Stalled in the United States Congress, Presents Serious Legal and Policy Issues, “Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.” 2010, vol. 14.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Li Y., Applying the Doctrine Of Unconscionability to Employment Arbitration Agreements, with Emphasis on Class Action/Arbitration Waivers, “Whittier L. Rev.” 2010, vol. 31.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lonegrass M., Finding Room For Fairness In Formalism-The Sliding Scale Approach To Unconscionability, “Loy. U. Chi. L.J.” 2012, vol. 44.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maatman G., Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: An Overview of 2020 in Workplace Class Action Litigation, “Lab. Law J.” 2021, vol. 889127.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Malin M., Labor Law Reform: Waiting for Congress? “Chi.-Kent L. Rev.” 1994, vol. 69.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Malin M., Privatizing Justice - But by how Much? Questions Gilmer did not Answer, “Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol.” 2001, vol. 16.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Malin M., The Arbitration Fairness Act: It Need not and Should not be an All or Nothing Proposition, “Ind. L.J.” 2012, vol. 87.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Malin M., Two Models of Interest Arbitration, “Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol.” 2013, vol. 28.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Meeker C., Defining “Ministerial Aid”: Union Decertification under the National Labor Relations Act “U. Chi. L. Rev.” 1999, vol. 66.10.2307/1600437
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Morlath J., Individual Rights vs. A Seat at the Table: The Guffey Act as an Alternative Model to the Wagner Act, “Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y” 2013, vol. 21.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mueller E., Ferris S., House Passes Labor Overhaul, Pitting Unions against the Filibuster. Politico (March 9, 2021) https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/09/house-pro-act-labor-unions-474941.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Murray J., The Uncertain Legacy Of Gilmer: Mandatory Arbitration Of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims, “Fordham Urb. L.J.” 1999, vol. 26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nguyen X.-T., Disrupting Adhesion Contracts with #Metoo Innovators “Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L.”, 2019, vol. 26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nolan D., Lehr R., Improving NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Procedures, “Tex. L. Rev.” 1978, vol. 57.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Norris L., The Parity Principle, “N.Y.U. L. Rev.” 2018, vol. 93.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Otte E., Toxic Secrecy: Non-Disclosure Agreements and #Metoo “U. Kan. L. Rev.” 2021, vol. 69.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Poe K., Arbitration Agreements - What is the Employee Actually Signing up for?, “J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L.” 2019, vol. 12.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prats J., Are Arbitration Agreements Necessary for Class-Action Waivers to be Enforceable? “Fla. B.J.” 2018, vol. 92-DEC.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ray D., Doing Well by Being Good: How U.S. Labor Law Encourages Employer Good Faith Behavior, “Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 14.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rios F., Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: Do They Protect Employers from Adjudicating Title VII Claims? “St. Mary’s L.J.” 1999, vol. 31.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rubenstein M., Attorney Labor Unions, “N.Y. St. B.J.” 2007, vol. 79-JAN.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Semet A., Political Decision-Making at the National Labor Relations Board: An Empirical Examination of the Board’s Unfair Labor Practice Decisions Through The Clinton And Bush II Years, “Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.” 2016, vol. 37.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Spitko E., Exempting High-Level Employees and Small Employers from Legislation Invalidating Predispute Employment Arbitration Agreements, “U.C. Davis L. Rev.” 2009, vol. 43.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Steber R., Alternative Remedies for Undocumented Workers Left Behind in a Post-Hoffman Plastic Era, “Cath. U. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 68.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sternlight J., Mandatory Arbitration Stymies Progress Towards Justice in Employment Law: Where to, #Metoo? “Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 54.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Summers C., Employment at Will in the United States: The Divine Right of Employers, “U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.” 2000, vol. 3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Thompson D., Supina S., What Ethical & Strategic Employers Should Do About Arbitration, 14 “Va. L. & Bus. Rev.” 2020, vol. 14.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tippett E., The Legal Implications of the Metoo Movement, “Minn. L. Rev.” 2018, vol. 103.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Stoppages Summary, (February 19, 2021) https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.nr0.htm.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Unfair Labor Practice Process Chart, National Labor Relations Board, https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/nlrb-process/unfair-labor-practice-process-chart.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Union Member Summary, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), January 22, 2021, at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Varner K., Hosak K., Blogging: Can Employers and Employees Avoid Getting Caught in the Web?, “Midwest L.J.” 2008, vol. 22.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Viscusi W., The Fatal Failure of the Regulatory State, “Wm. & Mary L. Rev.” 2018, vol. 60.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Von Mehren A., The Death of Contract, “Colum. L. Rev.” 1974, vol. 75.10.2307/1121699
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weston M., Buying Secrecy: Non-Disclosure Agreements, Arbitration, and Professional Ethics in the #Metoo Era, “U. Ill. L. Rev.” 2021, vol. 2021.10.2139/ssrn.3542590
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wexler L., Robbennolt J., Murphy C., #Metoo, Time’s Up, and Theories of Justice, “U. Ill. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 2019.10.2139/ssrn.3135442
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wielsch D., Relational Justice, “Law & Contemp. Probs.” 2013, vol. 76.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wilson J., Laird A., Practicing before the NLRB, “The Advoc. (Texas)” 2014, vol. 69.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wolfson T., King B., Even after Concepcion and Italian Colors, Some Arbitration Agreements are Not Enforceable, “Fed. Law.” 2015, vol. 62-FEB.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Worster R., If it’s Hardly Worth Doing, it’s Hardly Worth Doing Right: How the NLRA’s Goals are Defeated Through Inadequate Remedies, “U. Rich. L. Rev.” 2004, vol. 38.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wynne S., Vaughn M., Silencing Matters of Public Concern: An Analysis of State Legislative Protection of Whistleblowers in Light of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, “Ala. C.R. & C.L. L. Rev.” 2017, vol. 8.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zalesne D., The Consentability of Mandatory Employment Arbitration Clauses, “Loy. L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 66 (Spring 2020).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Altura Communication Solutions, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 85, *1 (2020).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Apt Medical Transportation, Inc., 333 NLRB 760, 767 (2001).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Arbah Hotel Corp., 368 NLRB No. 119 (2019).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ashford v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 954 F.3d 678, 684–85 (4th Cir. 2020).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barrasso v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. 2016 WL 1449567 (D. Mass. 2016), *5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brinks USA, 354 NLRB 312, 325 (2009).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1337 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
CP Anchorage Hotel 2, LLC, D/B/A Hilton Anchorage 370 NLRB No. 83 (2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Delfingen US-Tex., L.P. v. Valenzuela, 407 S.W.3d 791, 794 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2013, no pet.).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Drivers, Warehouse & Dairy Employees Union, Local No. 75 v. N.L.R.B., 866 F.2d 1537 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Epic Systems v. Lewis, 584 U.S., 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 785 F.3d 729, 734 (2015).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Systems, 500 U.S. 20 (1991).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Great Lakes Coal Co., 268 NLRB 1207, 1215 (1984).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Harrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., 602 F.3d 113, 126 n.7 (2nd Cir. 2010).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933, 938 (4th Cir. 1999).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
HTH Corp., 361 NLRB 709, 716 (2014).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
In Re Konig, 318 NLRB 901, 905 (1995).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
In re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 419, 424 (Tex. 2010).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd. v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd. [1989] 1 QB 433 (CA) at 439 (Lord Bingham LJ) (appeal taken from Lambeth Cty. Ct.) (Eng.)).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
K Mart Corp. 242 NLRB 855, 876 (1979).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McKinney v. Creative Vision Resources, LLC 2013 WL 351655 (E.D. La. 2013), *25.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Midwest Casting, 194 NLRB 523 n. 13 (1971).10.2307/1566978
]Search in Google Scholar
[
NLRB v. Cable Vision, Inc., 660 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1981).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 386 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 1978).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Richfield Hospitality, Inc. 369 NLRB No. 111 (2020).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rivera-Vega v. ConAgra, Inc. 876 F.Supp. 1350, 1363 (D. P.R. 1995).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Salley v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 925 A.2d 115, 592 Pa. 323 (Pa. 2007).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Scepter Ingot Castings, Inc., 341 NLRB 997 (2004).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co., Inc., 173 NLRB 125, 130 (1968).10.2307/1371449
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp., 912 A.2d 874, 2006 PA Super. 346 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Triumph Aerostructures, Vought Aircraft Division, 369 NLRB No. 123 (2020).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555, 562–563 (Pa. 2009).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wis. Dep’t of Indus. Labor and Human Rel. v. Gould, 475 U.S. 282, 289 (1986).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yam Seng [2013] EWHC [151].
]Search in Google Scholar
