About

Michael Z. Green is a professor at Texas A&M University School of Law whose scholarship focuses on the intersection of civil rights, labor, and race. His work critically examines the challenges faced by Black and organized workers, particularly in the context of anti-racism efforts and union organizing. In his article "Black Labor Matters," published in the American University Law Review, Green explores the threats posed by anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) narratives and anti-union agendas, especially those influenced by federal government actions and business reactions such as Project 2025. He highlights the emergence of two key worker coalitions: the New Black Workers Movement (NBWM), which originated from the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, and the New Labor Workers Movement (NLWM), which arose as a response to the global pandemic and the renewed push for comprehensive worker protections beyond racial justice. Green's scholarship advocates for local, grassroots strategies that enable these coalitions to protect vulnerable workers and foster collaboration between civil rights and labor movements, challenging prevailing skepticism about the viability of such alliances. By applying the interest-convergence principle, his work offers a novel framework for understanding and advancing the rights and livelihoods of Black and organized workers in contemporary labor and civil rights struggles.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Law
• Business
• Advertising
• Law and economics
• Economics

Selected publications

• The Brilliance of Explaining Mandatory Arbitration as a Choice Between Saturns and Rickshaws

  2025-08-21

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract This article posits that the arbitral forum might be preferable to court litigation because it is considerably more accessible to workers who cannot afford or do not have claims interesting enough to attract private counsel or in many cases administrative agencies as well This article questions whether the existing justice system truly serves most employee claimants better than a private arbitration system. The author supports these claims with available empirical evidence, which establishes that arbitration is faster than litigation and that employee claimants win more frequently in arbitration, albeit receiving lower awards. The article leverages this information to support the theory that courts offer “Cadillac” justice to high-income employees with claims large enough to attract a private lawyer. The high costs and long delays inherent in the court system leave lower-paid employees with few options—the proverbial rickshaw. This article concludes that, while the result of the existing system works for well-off claimants, it does not provide any form of justice for an average claimant. This article suggests that arbitration’s critics reconsider the arbitration process. Properly designed employment arbitration is cheaper and faster than litigation, like the old Saturn automobile (a mid-priced automobile in the 1990s), and, perhaps more importantly, is more accessible to most workers workers..

  PublisherDOI

• Arbitrator Reversal under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(3) for Excluding Evidence

  Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2024

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Law
  • Political Science

  In honor of the 100th anniversary of the Federal Arbitration Act, this volume brings together a diverse group of leading scholars and practitioners to celebrate its successes and propose specific reforms. Readers will gain insight into how the Federal Arbitration Act impacts the modern practice of arbitration and how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act undermines its fairness. Focusing on domestic, commercial and consumer, as well as securities and labor and employment arbitration, this book provides a roadmap to enhance the fairness and coherence of the Act. The volume is unique in that it serves as the impetus for a law reform project, with over thirty scholars speaking collectively for improvements to the law. More effective than scattershot arguments, this coordinated effort delivers a consistent message to a national audience: that arbitration has become ubiquitous and the law should ensure it is fair and equitable

  PublisherDOI

• (A)woke Workplaces

  Wisconsin law review · 2023-01-01 · 11 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  With heightened expectations for a reckoning in response to the broad support for the Black Lives Matter movement after the senseless murder of George Floyd in 2020, employers explored many options to improve racial understanding through discussions with workers. In rejecting any notions of the existence of structural or systemic discrimination, let alone the need to address the consequences of such discrimination, certain groups have begun to oppose BLM by seeking to diminish any social justice actions. One of those key resistance efforts includes labelling in pejorative terms any employers that pursue anti-racism objectives via social justice statements or internal initiatives as being “woke” workplaces. These groups have also criticized employers who adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion training to help workers address racial differences by arguing these sessions apply divisive Critical Race Theory principles that discriminate against and seek to stigmatize white participants. By using CRT and woke labels as weapons, critics leave employers in the unenviable position of determining how to implement antiracism trainings in an environment of BLM reforms and race discrimination concerns. These all-encompassing anti-anti-racism narratives now force employers to show how their DEI trainings and related initiatives do not discriminate against white employees. This Article offers unique insight for employers who pursue DEI measures to achieve racial progress and asserts they may circumvent antianti-racism narratives by continuing to rely on the litigation reforms and stillpresent empirical results that led to the growth of DEI training practices in the 1990s. Many employers had adopted DEI initiatives as good corporate citizens valuing diversity in human resources as a growth of affirmative action in the 1970s. With legal concerns in the 1990s about huge jury verdicts in discrimination lawsuits and empirical indicators of systemic discrimination, employers embraced more comprehensive racial improvement and training steps via written consent decrees and judicially approved settlements. This Article concludes that awoke employers should adopt broader DEI goals and limit training on entry-level racial awareness given empirical data suggesting this particular approach tends to spark backlash without any resulting diversity improvements. Instead, awoke employers understand that most constituents want them to act and lead responsibly regarding comprehensive DEI measures by going beyond legal protections. Training can focus on managers who may subject a company to employment discrimination liability. Awoke training integrates key follow-ups and correlates to measurable DEI results. Focusing on DEI training alone ignores the more important structural change work.

  PublisherDOI

• Black and Blue Police Arbitration Reforms

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2022 · 1 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Political Science
  • Law
  PublisherDOI

• A New #MeToo Result: Rejecting Notions of Romantic Consent with Executives

  eYLS (Yale Law School) · 2019-01-01 · 5 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  With the growth of the #MeToo movement since October 2017, more than 200 prominent male executives have lost their jobs. Some pushback has occurred as many of these executives have asserted their behavior was not inappropriate because their acts were consensual. Essentially, this argument requires companies evaluating this behavior to find nothing wrong when executives use their vast power and influence to have romantic and sexual relationships with their subordinates who do not say “no.”Those suggesting that the #MeToo movement has gone too far believe it will result in unintended consequences where totally benign and even positive engagement between bosses and subordinates will be circumvented out of a fear of unfairly ending the careers of executives without any real culpability. Incidents of innocent flirting, harmless jokes, and even an initial overture seeking a romantic relationship could lead to total destruction of an otherwise productive executive’s career as #MeToo responses have demanded zero tolerance and immediate resignation or termination from executive positions. Critics of the #MeToo movement argue that businesses have responded wrongly by preempting the loyal, happy, and productive relationships occurring in many workplaces where employees have engaged in successful romantic relationships with co-workers and eventually married.To rebut the claims of disparagement aimed at #MeToo for stigmatizing alleged consenting relationships occurring in the workplace, this Article asserts that the enormous power differentials between corporate executives and their subordinates support a completely preventative measure aimed at making an executive pay for any liability or discord resulting from not only engaging in sexually offensive behavior with subordinates but also consensually romantic behavior. With the power to impact not only the subordinate’s immediate work situation, a truly influential executive also has the potential to affect the subordinate’s entire career. Because of these power differentials, a subordinate can never truly know that a response of “no” consent will be received in a positive manner by the executive as “no means no.”Subordinates will always likely fear retaliation for refusing the executive. Even if they acquiesce and begrudgingly or enthusiastically accept the executive’s overture, subordinates face being viewed as obtaining career advancements based on factors other than merit. Also, this type of executive behavior sends a broader and overall negative message to all subordinates that the way to advance in the organization will not be based upon merit but through acceding to romantic and sexual overtures.When an executive mistreats a subordinate by making romantic and sexual advances, retaliation claims and other forms of corporate liability represent concerns for the employer even if the underlying conduct by the executive was insufficient to warrant liability for harassment. Corporations have an incentive to avoid this liability risk even if some executives and subordinates might act responsibly and develop positive romantic relationships resulting in productive outcomes for the business. Given strong concerns about retaliation as well as a result of extreme power differentials, this Article seeks support for subordinates who face sexual misconduct in the workplace committed by executives.The Article also tackles the issue of consent by proposing that employers require that executives can never assert consent or rely on a failure to say “no” in defense of objections to their romantic overtures. An executive may still attempt to engage in flirting and joking and even pursue romantic relationships, but a subordinate’s consent or failure to say “no” would never be a justifiable defense for this behavior, if challenged. Potential liability and the need to protect against diminishing corporate value for this inappropriate executive behavior in this time of #MeToo provides cause for this response.

  Publisher

• ADR and Access to Justice: Current Perspectives

  eYLS (Yale Law School) · 2018-01-01 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access

  Welcome to

  Publisher

• Can NFL Players Obtain Judicial Review of Arbitration Decisions on the Merits When a Typical Hourly Union Worker Cannot Obtain This Unusual Court Access

  eYLS (Yale Law School) · 2017-01-01 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Several recent court cases, brought on behalf of National Football League (NFL) players by their union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), have increased media and public attention to the challenges of labor arbitrator decisions in federal courts. The Supreme Court has established a body of federal common law that places a high premium on deferring to labor arbitrator decisions and counseling against judges deciding the merits of disputes covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). A recent trend suggests federal judges have ignored this body of law and analyzed the merits of labor arbitration decisions in the NFL setting. NFL employees, as millionaires, are able to use a significant war chest, given to their union, to hire very prominent attorneys to argue their cases in federal courts after the union has lost the dispute in final and binding arbitration. Unlike a typical hourly union worker, who has very limited legal options after an arbitration award has been rendered, millionaire professional football players and their union appear to be successfully challenging labor arbitrator decisions on the merits in federal district courts. Their prominent attorneys, from major corporate law firms that tend to represent employers in workplace disputes, appear to add value in resources and skills on behalf of their rich, professional football employee clients. Do these rich financial and legal resources suggest an unusual access to judges who may be more willing to hear their novel legal arguments outside of the typical standards established by the Supreme Court’s federal arbitration jurisprudence? This Article explores the recent access to court that NFL players have been able to obtain in challenging decisions made pursuant to a CBA. The Article argues that the financial resources of these unique union employees have led to the unusual access and consideration by federal trial judges in reviewing the merits of decisions that typically would not be considered under federal labor arbitration law. Overall, however, the record also suggests that the immediate appellate courts have responded to overturn this unusual consideration of the merits of labor arbitration decisions by reversing those initial court opinions. This Article concludes that, because of the strong public interest in labor arbitration decisions involving the NFLPA, the federal courts must normally defer to the arbitrator’s decision regardless of the merits. Otherwise, a typical union worker challenging a labor arbitrator’s decision will be left with the wrong perception about access to justice and believe that one must be rich to have a federal judge consider the merits of a labor dispute.

  Publisher

• Protecting Unhappy Worker Outbursts from Discriminatory Treatment

  Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like · 2017-02-15

  article1st authorCorresponding
  Publisher

• Civility and Mediation as Workplace Responses to Conscious Disregard of Racially-Biased Behaviors

  2016-01-01

  article1st authorCorresponding
  Publisher

• What Non-Union Lawyers Need to Know About Employment Policy Enforcement at the National Labor Relations Board

  2016-01-01

  article1st authorCorresponding
  Publisher

Frequent coauthors

• Kyle T. Carney

  2 shared

• Terry Smith

  University of St Andrews

  1 shared

• Rory Van Loo

  1 shared

• Francine J. Lipman

  University of Nevada, Las Vegas

  1 shared

• Ellen E. Deason

  1 shared

• Donna Shestowsky

  1 shared

• Addie C. Rolnick

  University of Nevada, Las Vegas

  1 shared

• Nicole B. Porter

  1 shared

Awards & honors

• Paul Steven Miller Memorial Award (2015)
• Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers (2014)
• Member of the American Law Institute (2006)