« ADA accommodation case taken off Supreme Court docket | Main | Medical marijuana law gives no protection from the boss »
Supreme Court takes three employment law cases
January 19, 2008 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
US Supreme Court granted certiorari in three employment law cases on January 18, 2008)
Retaliation: Is cooperating with internal investigation protected activity?
Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
Details, briefs: http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Crawford/
Crawford claimed she was discharged because she cooperated in her employer's investigation of sexual harassment complaints against another employee. No EEOC charge had been filed prior to the investigation. Title VII Section 704(a) protects an employee from retaliation because the employee "has opposed" an unlawful employment practice or "participated in any manner in an investigation ... under this chapter." The 6th Circuit held that Crawford was not protected by either the "opposition" clause or the "participation" clause. Her petition for certiorari presents the following question: "Does the anti-retaliation provision of section 704(a) of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protect a worker from being dismissed because she cooperated with her employer's internal investigation of sexual harassment?"
ADEA: Burden of persuasion in establishing "reasonable factors other than age."
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Details, briefs: http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Meacham/
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employment practices that have an unjustified disparate impact on older workers, Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228 (2005), but also provides that it "shall not be unlawful for an employer . . . to take any action otherwise prohibited . . . where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age." The question presented in the petition for certiorari is: "Whether an employee alleging disparate impact under the ADEA bears the burden of persuasion on the "reasonable factors other than age" defense, as held by the Second Circuit in this case in conflict with the decisions of other circuits and a regulation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."
ERISA: Judicial review when administrator both decides claims and pays claims.
MetLife v. Glenn
Details, briefs: http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/MetLife/
The Supreme Court will decide two issues: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding, in conflict with two other Circuits, that the fact that a claim administrator of an ERISA plan also funds the plan benefits, without more, constitutes a "conflict of interest" which must be weighed in a judicial review of the administrator's benefit determination under Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989)? (2) If an administrator that both determines and pays claims under an ERISA plan is deemed to be operating under a conflict of interest, how should that conflict be taken into account on judicial review of a discretionary benefit determination?"
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
