Reuel Schiller

Professor of Law UC Hastings College of the Law

  • San Francisco CA

Contacts: schiller@uchastings.edu / 415-565-4879 / Office 380-200

Contact

UC Hastings College of the Law

View more experts managed by UC Hastings College of the Law

Biography

Professor Reuel Schiller’s teaching and scholarship focuses on American legal history, administrative law, and labor and employment law. He has written extensively about the legal history of the American administrative state, and the historical development of labor law and employment discrimination law. His most recent book, Forging Rivals: Race, Class, Law, and the Collapse of Postwar Liberalism (Cambridge University Press, 2015), won the American Society for Legal History’s John Phillip Reid Award and was an Honorable Mention for the Law and Society Association’s J. Willard Hurst Award. Schiller has also received the American Bar Association, Administrative Law Section’s scholarship award and the Rutter Award for Teaching Excellence.

In addition to his teaching and scholarship, Professor Schiller is a co-editor of Cambridge University Press’s Studies in Legal History book series, and the convener of the American Society for Legal History’s Johnson Fellowship for first book authors. He is also serves on the editorial board of the Law and History Review.

Professor Schiller studied history as an undergraduate at Yale College. His obtained his law degree and history Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. After college he worked for the City of New York on immigration, criminal justice, education, and civil rights policy. After graduating from law school, he clerked for Judge J. Frederick Motz of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Following his clerkship, he was a Samuel I. Golieb Fellow in Legal History at New York University School of Law and a Louis Prashker Teaching Fellow at St. John’s University School of Law.

A native New Yorker, Professor Schiller lives in Albany, CA, with his wife, Jane Williams, and their children.

Social Media

Areas of Expertise

Administrative Law
American Legal History
Labor Law
Employment Law

Education

University of Virginia Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Ph.D.

History

1997

University of Virginia Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

M.A.

History

1990

University of Virginia School of Law

J.D.

Law

1993

Order of the Coif.

Show All +

Affiliations

  • California Legal History (Journal) : Editorial Board
  • American Historical Association
  • Organization of American Historians
  • Law and History Review (Journal) : Editorial Board
  • American Review for Legal History : Board of Directors

Media Appearances

Could A Legal Ruling Instantly Wipe Out Uber? Not So Fast

Forbes  online

2015-06-19

t will have a class-action certification hearing in August and is set to go to a jury trial after that, but “federal courts take even longer,” said UC Hastings law professor Reuel Schiller. If the case becomes a class-action suit, the stakes are raised, and it might present a scarier financial risk to Uber... “There’s no law that requires Uber or any other company to say, ‘Oh, well, Schiller won, therefore we need to change our employment practices,” Schiller said. “If Uber wanted to, they could contest every case. They could argue that the facts are that Schiller drives fewer hours than you, or any number of different factual distinctions. Does Uber mind paying out $4,000 a couple of times a month to the drivers who have the resources and time to bring these individual cases?” he added. “I don’t know, but we both know they have that kind of money. … The class-action mechanism is a more potent mechanism to generate a response.”...

View More

Uber Driver Was Employee, Not Contractor, California Commission Says

The Wall Street Journal  online

2015-06-17

Rulings by state agencies like the California Labor Commission don’t set a formal precedent for court cases or other actions, said Reuel Schiller, a law professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law. But, should various federal or state entities determine that Uber drivers are employees—whether for purposes of collecting unemployment insurance or expense reimbursement, for example—“it builds up momentum for the idea that these folks look a lot more like employees than they look like independent contractors,” he said...

View More

After Loss, Pao Hopes Case Helped Level the Playing Field

Wired  online

2015-03-27

Whatever the jury’s decision, the case has exposed the vulnerabilities of Silicon Valley’s lax approach to human resources, said Reuel Schiller, professor of labor and employment law at UC Hastings. Kleiner acknowledged during the case, for example, that it was unable to locate a written copy of its equal opportunity employment policy after it brought in an outside investigator to look into Pao’s complaints of gender bias at the firm. “If you don’t have, frankly, more traditional ways of managing your human resources, you’re going to get into trouble,” Schiller said. “You’re going to particularly get into trouble in the situaion the tech community is in right now, that there are so few women employees.”...

View More

Show All +

Event Appearances

’It is Not Wisdom, but Authority That Makes a Law.’ A Historical Perspective on the Problem of Creating a Restatement of Employment Law.

San Francisco, California  Hastings College of the Law Conference on the Restatement of Employment Law

2009-03-01

“Singing the ‘Right to Work’ Blues: The Politics of Race in the Campaign for ‘Voluntary Unionism’ in Post-War California

Department of History Conference on “The Right and Labor: Politics, Ideology, and Imagination.  University of California, Santa Barbara, California

2009-01-01

The Era of Deference: Courts, Expertise, and the Emergence of New Deal Administrative Law

American Bar Association, Administrative Law Section Annual Meeting  Washington, D.C.

2008-10-01

Show All +

Selected Articles

An Unexpected Antagonist: Courts, Deregulation, and Conservative Judicial Ideology

Making Legal History: Essays in Honor of William E. Nelson

2013-01-01

This article examines the judicial response to attempts by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush to promote a deregulatory agenda through executive action. It describes how the federal judiciary frequently prevented both administrations from implementing deregulatory policies despite the fact that by the late 1980s politically conservative judges dominated the bench. The essay identifies two reasons for this judicial resistance. First, because executive deregulation required courts to adopt a highly deferential posture towards executive action, courts allowing it would have been forced to endorse administrative law doctrines that transferred a great deal of power from courts to the executive. Conservative judges were unwilling to take this step. Their institutional interest in retaining power over the administrative state trumped their political inclinations. Second, judicial rejection of executive deregulation illustrates a contradiction within late twentieth-century conservative ideology. Conservatism was committed to anti-statist policies such as deregulation. It was also, however, extremely hostile to what it perceived as judicial activism. Consequently, conservatives developed a series of mechanisms that were intended to limit the powers of the courts. These included textual approaches to statutory interpretation, and a belief in originalism in both constitutional and statutory interpretation. A commitment to both textualism and originalism undermined executive deregulation. Thus, conflicting impulses within late-twentieth-century conservatism limited the ability of conservatives to put their reform agenda into effect.

View more

Singing the 'Right-to-Work Blues': The Politics of Race in the Campaign for 'Voluntary Unionism' in Post-War California

The Right and Labor in America: Politics, Ideology, and Imagination

2012-01-01

This article tells the story of the failed attempt to pass a right-to-work proposition in California in 1958. In particular, it shows how right-to-work activists attempted to persuade African Americans to vote in favor of the proposition by portraying it as a fair employment practices measure. Because many California labor unions engaged in discriminatory practices, anti-union forces within the state thought they could tap into the hostility that many African Americans felt towards the labor movement. This strategy was unsuccessful. African Americans voted against the right-to-work proposition in overwhelming numbers. Nevertheless, the campaign exacerbated tensions in the tenuous political alliance between labor and the African American community. In the years that followed the proposition’s defeat, these tensions would undermine the political power of the labor movement, the African American community, and the Democratic Party.

View more

'It is Not Wisdom, but Authority that Makes a Law:' A Historical Perspective on the Problem of Creating a Restatement of Employment Law

Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal

2009-04-29

When the American Law Institute (ALI) first began creating the Restatements in 1923, its goal was to solve the problem of the increasing incoherence of the common law. Langdellian legal science was supposed to have generated objectively “correct” legal rules, yet the ever increasing number of published opinions revealed quite the opposite. The common law was developing chaotically, without consistency or logic. Yet the creation of Restatements has never been a smooth, uncontroversial process. Indeed, as the various critiques of the proposed Restatement (Third) of Employment Law that are the subject of this conference demonstrate, restating the law can create as many problems as it solves.

View more

Show All +