Jump to Navigation

Posts tagged "Supreme Court"

Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613 (U.S. S. Ct. May 23, 2016)

In the Supreme Court's only substantive Title VII case this term, the six-justice majority takes a plaintiff-friendly view of when a claim for constructive discharge accrues - on the date that the employee declares his resignation - while Justice Alito's special concurrence and Justice Thomas's dissent would start the limitations clock with the last discriminatory event. The court also dispenses with the requirement (imposed by some courts) that hostile working conditions be created by the employer with the intent of making the employee resign.

Expansions in LGBTQ Employees' Rights and Benefits

Major shifts in gender equality jurisprudence in recent years have led to expanded rights and benefits for LGBTQ employees.  The Section devoted two panels at the Section Conference to the rapidly developing areas of anti-discrimination law, employee benefits, and sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace. The scope of civil rights protections for LGBTQ employees under Title VII generated the most discussion in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and the EEOC's decision in Baldwin v. forx (EEOC 2015).  In Obergefell, the Court held that the 14th Amendment guarantees all couples, straight or gay, the fundamental right to marry under a due process analysis, although Justice Kennedy noted that the ruling derived in part from the Equal Protection clause.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86 (U.S. S. Ct. June 1, 2015)

The epic EEOC challenge to Abercrombie & Fitch's "Look Policy" for its retail stores turns another page, as the Supreme Court holds 8-1 that the Tenth Circuit erred in granting judgment as a matter of law to the employer on the agency's religious discrimination case. Seven justices, in an opinion signed by Justice Scalia, hold that There is no "knowledge" requirement for Title VII discrimination claims. Thus, the company's argument that it did not "know" about the applicant's Muslim religious faith - even though she was wearing a headscarf - did not avoid liability. Justice Alito concurs only in the judgment; Justice Thomas dissents.

Tibble v. Edison Int'l, No. 13-550 (U.S. May 18, 2015)

The Supreme Court - presented with a simple question about ERISA's fiduciary-duty statute of limitations (29 U. S. C. § 1113) - lays the foundation for a potential new round of litigation about how strictly and often plan fiduciaries must monitor the performance of their retirement investment plans. The Court, without dissent, agrees that There is no set-it-and-forget-it rule for fiduciaries.  

Mach Mining LLC v. EEOC, No. 13-1019 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2015)

The Supreme Court unanimously holds that a lawsuit commenced by the EEOC cannot be dismissed simply based on an employer's argument that the agency did not try hard enough to conciliate the claim before filing under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The Court spells out the limited proof permitted on a defense of non-exhaustion, and concludes that the remedy is not dismissal, but instead remand to the agency for further settlement efforts. This decision ends a longstanding split among federal courts on this issue, deciding mostly in favor of the EEOC.

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.: The Supreme Court's Opportunity to Enforce Existing Anti-Pregnancy Discrimination Laws

Should a pregnant employee be treated the same as a non-pregnant employee with a similar work limitation?  The Supreme Court will hear argument on that simple yet hotly contested question on December 3, 2014 in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., on appeal from the Fourth Circuit.  707 F.3d 437, 441 (4th Cir. 2013)

Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, No. 12-484 (U.S. June 24, 2013) and Vance v. Ball State Univ., No. 11-556 (U.S. June 24, 2013)

The Supreme Court, by identical 5-4 majorities, places the goals of convenience and ease of litigating Title VII cases over the legislative imperative of expanding opportunities in the workplace for all. Vance holds that a "supervisor," for purposes of proving vicarious liability for harassment against employers, must be an agent with the power to take "tangible acts" against the employee, such as firing and setting pay. Nassar holds that employees may never shift the burden to employers to disprove causation for Title VII claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C § 2000e-3(a). Both based their interpretations in part on the convenience of allowing lower courts to take these issues away from juries.

subscribe to this blog's feed subscribe to this blog's feed

tell us about your case

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

facebook twitter linked in

our office locations

Outten & Golden LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor  
New York, NY 10017  
Phone: 212-245-1000
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
161 North Clark Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Il 60601  
Phone: 312-809-7010
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
601 Massachussetts Avenue NW
Second Floor West Suite 200W
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Map and Directions