|
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power
Laboratory (US Supreme Court 06/19/2008)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1505.pdf
The employer laid off employees
during an involuntary reduction in force. Of the 31 employees laid off, 30
were over 40 years old. The workforce as a whole was 60% over 40. Some of
the laid off employees sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA), using a disparate impact theory. A jury found in favor of the
plaintiffs.
The US Supreme Court held, 8-0, that
an employer defending a disparate impact claim under the ADEA bears both the
burden of production and the burden of persuasion for the "reasonable
factors other than age" (RFOA) affirmative defense. The ADEA's text and
structure indicate that the RFOA exemption creates an affirmative defense.
The "business necessity" test has no place in ADEA disparate
impact cases.
Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC
(US Supreme Court 06/19/2008)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1037.pdf
EEOC sued claiming that a
disability-retirement-benefits plan for state and county employees violates
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
The KRS
disability-retirement-benefits plan disqualifies employees who are still
working from receiving disability-retirement benefits if they have already
reached normal retirement-benefit age at the time they become disabled. The
plan also calculates disability retirement benefits in such a way that an
older employee who is eligible to receive disability benefits receives fewer
benefits - in the form of lower monthly benefit payments - than a younger
disabled employee receiving disability-retirement benefits who is similar to
the older disabled employee in every relevant factor other than age.
The US Supreme Court held, 5-4, that
Kentucky's system does not discriminate against workers who become disabled
after becoming eligible for retirement based on age. The differences in
treatment in this particular case were not "actually motivated" by
age. This was a special case of differential treatment based on pension
status.
Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (US
Supreme Court 06/19/2008)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-939.pdf
California Gov't Code Section
16645.2(a) bars private employers who are "recipient[s] of a grant of
state funds" from "us[ing] the funds to assist, promote, or deter
union organizing." Similarly, Section 16645.7(a) bars "a private
employer receiving state funds in excess of [$10,000] in any calendar year
on account of its participation in a state program" from using such
funds "to assist, promote, or deter union organizing."
The US Supreme Court held, 7-2, that
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts California's statute.
California's policy judgment that partisan employer speech necessarily
interferes with an employee's choice about union representation is the same
policy judgment that Congress renounced when it amended the NLRA to preclude
regulation of noncoercive speech as an unfair labor practice.
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn
(US Supreme Court 06/19/2008)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-923.pdf
MetLife, an ERISA plan
administrator, terminated Glenn's disability benefits on the ground that she
had improved to the point of no longer being totally disabled. Glenn sued to
recover her benefits. The 6th Circuit noted that MetLife operated under an
apparent conflict of interests because MetLife both decides the claims
and pays the claims. Although the trial court upheld MetLife's denial of the
claim, the 6th Circuit reviewed the evidence and set aside the denial of
benefits.
The US Supreme Court, 7-2, held (1)
a plan administrator's dual role of both evaluating and paying benefits
claims creates the kind of conflict of interest referred to in Firestone
Tire & Rubber v. Bruch, 489 US 101 (1989), and (2) the 6th Circuit
properly weighed the conflict of interest as one of several factors in
deciding to set aside the administrator's discretionary decision.
|
