« NLRB will re-hear 2-Member decisions | Main | Wal-Mart wants review of 1.5 million member class action »
Supreme Court recap: Employment Law
July 02, 2010 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
Brief summaries of cases decided by the US Supreme Court during the term that ended last week, plus cases in which certiorari has been granted:
*** Cases Decided ***
Disparate Impact: Use of an earlier unlawful employment practice states a disparate claim.
Lewis v. City of Chicago (05/24/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Lewis/
Firefighters claimed that a written test had a disparate impact on black applicants and was not a valid test of firefighting aptitude. They filed an EEOC charge more than 400 days after they were notified, but within 300 days of the City's beginning to hire applicants. Held: A plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice may assert a disparate-impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later application of that practice as long as he alleges each of the elements of a disparate-impact claim.
Privacy: Search of police pager text messages was reasonable, so no 4th amendment violation.
City of Ontario v. Quon (06/17/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Quon/
The City acquired transcripts from the provider of City-issued pagers and discovered that Quon had used the pager for personal purposes and that some text messages were sexually explicit. Held: The search of Quon's text messages was reasonable and did not violate the 4th amendment because the search was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and it was not excessive in scope.
ERISA: Plan administrator's interpretation is entitled to deference even after reversal for violating ERISA (5-3).
Conkright v. Frommert (04/21/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Conkright/
After a Court of Appeals found that an ERISA Plan had violated ERISA in several respects and remanded for fashioning a remedy, the district court declined to apply a deferential standard to the Plan administrator's proposed a new interpretation, and adopted instead an approach proposed by the employees. Held: The district court should have applied a deferential standard of review to the Plan administrator's new interpretation of the Plan on remand.
ERISA: Claimant can get attorney fees if there is "some degree of success on the merits."
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins Co (05/24/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Hardt/
When Hardt sued for denial of disability benefits, the trial court remanded to the carrier, who then granted benefits; the trial court awarded attorney fees. Held: A court may award fees and costs under §1132(g)(1), as long as the fee claimant has achieved "some degree of success on the merits."
Arbitration: Imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to it violates Federal Arbitration Act (5-3).
Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Intl Corp (04/27/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Stolt-Nielsen/
An international maritime contract contained an arbitration clause that was silent as to whether arbitration is permissible on behalf of a class. Held: Imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.
Arbitration: Arbitrator, not court, decides whether arbitration agreement is unconscionable (5-4).
Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson (06/21/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Jackson/
The employee argued that an arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and that the issue of unconscionability must be decided by a court rather than an arbitrator. Held: The issue of unconscionability is for the arbitrator to decide. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator.
Arbitration: Court, not arbitrator, decides CBA's ratification date.
Granite Rock Company v. Teamsters (06/21/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Granite/
The employer and union disagreed as to the ratification date of a new collective bargaining agreement. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Held: The ratification date dispute must be decided by the court, not an arbitrator.
Arbitration: Pre-arbitration conference is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to National Railway Adjustment Board arbitration.
Union Pacific RR v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (12/08/2009)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/UnionPacific/
Held: The statutory requirement of a pre-arbitration conference was not a jurisdictional prerequisite to National Railway Adjustment Board arbitration.
NLRB: NLRB cannot act when only two of its five positions are filled (5-4).
New Process Steel v. NLRB (06/17/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/newprocess/
The NLRB decided an unfair labor practice case at a time when it had only two Members. Held: NLRA Section 3(b) requires that a delegee group maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the NLRB.
NLRA §301: New cause of action for tortious interference rejected.
Granite Rock Company v. Teamsters (06/21/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Granite/
The employer claimed that an international union tortiously interfered with a local collective bargaining agreement by supporting a strike in violation of that agreement. Held: The Court refused to recognize a new federal common-law cause of action under LMRA Section 301 for the international union's alleged tortious interference with the CBA.
False Claims Act: Qui tam suit is barred by prior disclosure in county and state reports (7-2).
Graham County Soil & Water v. US ex rel Wilson (03/30/2010)
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/GrahamCounty/
The False Claims Act bars a qui tam suit if there has been a prior public disclosure of information in an “administrative ... report ... audit, or investigation.” Held: The reference to "administrative" reports, audits, and investigations encompasses disclosures made in state and local sources as well as federal sources.
*** Certiorari Granted ***
Retaliation: Is oral complaint protected conduct under FLSA's anti-retaliation provision?
Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Kasten/
Issue: Is an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)?
Retaliation: Does Title VII create a cause of action for third-party retaliation for persons who did not themselves engage in protect activity?
Thompson v. North American Stainless
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Thompson/
Issue: Whether Title VII Section 704(a) forbids an employer from retaliating for filing an EEOC charge by inflicting reprisals on a third party (here, a fiancé), closely associated with the employee who filed the charge.
Cat's Paw: In what circumstances may an employer be held liable based on the unlawful intent of officials who caused or influenced but did not make the ultimate employment decision?
Staub v. Proctor Hospital
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Staub/
Issue: In what circumstances may an employer be held liable based on the unlawful intent of officials who caused or influenced but did not make the ultimate employment decision?
Privacy: Did NASA's background investigations violate federal contract employee's constitutional right to informational privacy?
NASA v. Nelson
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/nasa/
Issue: Whether the government violates a federal contract employee’s constitutional right to informational privacy when it asks in the course of a background investigation whether the employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use that has occurred within the past year, or asks the employee’s designated references for any adverse information that may have a bearing on the employee’s suitability for employment at a federal facility, and the information is used only for employment purposes and is protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Arbitration: Does Federal Arbitration Act preempt state unconscionability law?
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Concepcion/
Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts States from conditioning the enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the availability of particular procedures - here, class-wide arbitration - when those procedures are not necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able to vindicate their claims.
Tax: Can IRS categorically exclude medical residents from the student exemption from Social Security tax?
Mayo Foundation v. United States
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Mayo/
Issue: Whether IRS can categorically exclude medical residents from the student exemption from Social Security tax.
Immigration: Preemption of Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens.
Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Candelaria/
Issue: Whether provisions of Arizona's Legal Arizona Workers Act are preempted: imposing sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens, and requiring all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system (E-Verify).
ERISA: ERISA claim for inconsistency between SPD and the actual Plan.
CIGNA Corporation v. Amara
http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Amara/
Issue: Whether a showing of “likely harm” is sufficient to entitle participants in or beneficiaries of an ERISA plan to recover benefits based on an alleged inconsistency between the explanation of benefits in the Summary Plan Description or similar disclosure and the terms of the plan itself.
