Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Chief Judge Lippman on Employee Benefits

A Consistent Supportive Vote
By Max Lindsey
Max Lindsey graduated Albany Law School, summa cum laude, in 2015. He previously attained his bachelor's degree from Western State Colorado University, in Gunnison, Colorado.
At Albany Law, Max served as class president for the Class of 2015 on the Student Bar Association for his 2L and 3L years. He served as a senior editor on the Albany Law Review, which published his note, When Every Drop Counts: Addressing Hydrologic Connectivity as a Climate Change Issue.
Max participated in several moot court programs, making it to the final round in Albany Law School's Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Competition, as well as the semi-final round in Albany Law's Senior Prize Trial Competition, and the National Law and Religion Appellate Advocacy Competition at Touro Law Center.
Currently, Max lives in the Albany, New York area, is expecting his first child in March 2016 with his beautiful wife Kelsey, and is working as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Mae D'Agostino in the Northern District of New York.
He wrote this paper for Professor Bonventre's Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman [retired Dec. 31, 2015] was a consistently liberal voting member on the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. This voting tendency is nowhere more evident than in cases involving employment questions and employees’ entitlement to certain benefits.
This paper will assess Chief Judge Lippman’s voting patterns and key points made in his opinions regarding employment decisions.  An analysis of the number of votes and opinions authored by Lippman, coupled with a textual examination of the scope and language employed within several opinions – including unanimous decisions, divided cases, and dissenting opinions – will demonstrate a strong pattern and identify the overriding values in Lippman’s employment jurisprudence.
Out of the forty-one cases analyzed, Chief Judge Lippman sided against the employee on only five occasions, each of which was a unanimous decision. He did not author any opinions, join the majority in any divided case, nor join any dissenting opinions that went against the employee.
To read the paper, open HERE.