Feminist Reflections on the Scope of Labour Law: Domestic Work, Social Reproduction and Jurisdiction

Drawing on feminist labour law and political economy literature, I argue that it is crucial to interrogate the personal and territorial scope of labour. After discussing the “commodification” of care, global care chains, and body work, I claim that the territorial scope of labour law must be expanded beyond that nation state to include transnational processes. I use the idea of social reproduction both to illustrate and to examine some of the recurring regulatory dilemmas that plague labour markets. I argue that unpaid care and domestic work performed in the household, typically by women, troubles the personal scope of labour law. I use the example of this specific type of personal service relation to illustrate my claim that the jurisdiction of labour law is historical and contingent, rather than conceptual and universal. I conclude by identifying some of the implications of redrawing the territorial and personal scope of labour law in light of feminist understandings of social reproduction

Genome-wide Analyses Identify KIF5A as a Novel ALS Gene

To identify novel genes associated with ALS, we undertook two lines of investigation. We carried out a genome-wide association study comparing 20,806 ALS cases and 59,804 controls. Independently, we performed a rare variant burden analysis comparing 1,138 index familial ALS cases and 19,494 controls. Through both approaches, we identified kinesin family member 5A (KIF5A) as a novel gene associated with ALS. Interestingly, mutations predominantly in the N-terminal motor domain of KIF5A are causative for two neurodegenerative diseases: hereditary spastic paraplegia (SPG10) and Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 2 (CMT2). In contrast, ALS-associated mutations are primarily located at the C-terminal cargo-binding tail domain and patients harboring loss-of-function mutations displayed an extended survival relative to typical ALS cases. Taken together, these results broaden the phenotype spectrum resulting from mutations in KIF5A and strengthen the role of cytoskeletal defects in the pathogenesis of ALS.Peer reviewe

Does Work Law Have a Future if the Labor Market Does Not?

This Essay is based on the 37th Annual Kenneth M. Piper Lecture. It offers a new perspective on the much-discussed “future of work.” That discussion typically highlights changes within the labor market that undermine the employment relationship’s role as the bedrock for work regulation. But might something even deeper be afoot, namely the disintegration of “the labor market” itself? Several recent developments challenge the legal construction of employment as occurring wholly inside a distinctive, and distinctively economic, market sphere. This Essay considers Uber and the relationship between work and “sharing,” Hobby Lobby and the relationship between work and religion, the unrest in Ferguson and the relationship between work and criminal justice, and Friedrichs and the relationship between work and politics. Each presents a conservative challenge to labor and employment law by blurring the boundaries between the labor market and other spheres, not by purging the labor market of noneconomic intrusions in the manner of laissez faire. This development presents a conundrum for traditional labor and employment law, which simultaneously defines its object in market terms while aspiring to reshape by incorporating certain nonmarket values

Get To Work or Go To Jail: Workplace Rights Under Threat

When many people consider work and the criminal justice system, they commonly consider how difficult it is for people coming out of jail to find work. Yet, a recent UCLA Labor Center report, Get to Work or Go To Jail: Workplace Rights Under Threat, goes further by exploring the ways in which the criminal justice system can also lock workers on probation, parole, facing court-ordered debt, or child support debt into bad jobs. Because these workers face the threat of incarceration for unemployment, the report finds that they cannot afford to refuse a job, quit a job, or to challenge their employers.Among other findings, the report concludes:*Nearly 5 million Americans and 400,000 Californians are under probation or parole*Many of these workers may be stripped of standard labor protections such such as minimum wage and workers compensation*On any given day, about 9,000 nationwide are in prison or jail for violating the probation or parole requirement to hold a job.*Every year in Los Angeles, 50,000-100,000 people must perform unpaid, court-order community service. Some debtors perform many hundreds of hours of unpaid labor, the equivalent to several months of full-time work.*African Americans or Latinos account for 2/3 of those incarcerated for violating parole or probation conditions related to work or debt.*The majority of fathers who were incarcerated for failing to pay child support worked during the previous year, in fact 95% of fathers reported having been employed prior to incarceration. Of these fathers, 85% of these fathers lived in or near poverty.This report was written in collaboration with the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment and a A New Way of Life

Disparate Impact and the Unity of Equality Law

This Article offers a new theory of disparate impact liability. This theory emerges from and advances a unified account of employment discrimination law as a whole. Like disparate treatment and non-accommodation, disparate impact claims target a distinctive injury to individuals: suffering workplace harm because of one’s race, sex, disability or other protected status. That injury of “status causation” offends basic commitments to equality and individual freedom. Rather than focusing on employers’ decision-making processes or on social hierarchy between groups, this approach draws directly from statutory text emphasizing causation and individual harm.A disparate impact claim’s statistical comparison of group outcomes provides evidence that individuals have suffered status causation. Group outcomes are constructed by aggregating individual outcomes. Disparities between group outcomes can emerge only if many individual group members suffer harm because of their protected status (status causation). But not all group members suffer this injury; it is spread unevenly within the group. The statistical evidence demonstrates that some individuals suffered discrimination’s injury, but not which individuals.Highlighting intra-group variation explains fundamental but otherwise perplexing features of disparate impact doctrine. Refusing to treat group members as interchangeable explains the structure of the prima facie case, including its rejection of any “bottom line” defense based on aggregate workforce composition. Also noted are other significant implications for remedies and for the relationship between employment discrimination law and redistributive social policy. In each case, the focus is one those individuals who have suffered status causation, not necessarily a group as a whole