|
Status |
Case Name
Link to summary and briefs |
Issue |
Oral argument
October 7, 2009 |
Union Pacific
Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General
Committee of Adjustment, Central Region
|
Can courts set aside final arbitration awards by National Railroad Adjustment
Board for alleged violations of due process
|
Oral argument
December 9, 2009
|
Stolt-Nielsen S.A.,
et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
|
Whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration
clauses are silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act,
9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. [Not
an employment law case.]
|
Oral argument
November 30, 2009
|
Graham
County Soil & Water v US ex rel. Wilson
|
Whether False Claims Act suit is barred by disclosures in state government
report
|
Oral argument
January 20, 2010
|
Conkright v. Frommert
|
ERISA: Deferral to plan
administrator; scope of appellate review
|
Oral argument
January 19, 2010
|
Granite Rock Company v. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters
|
LMRA Section 301 suit: tortious
interference and duty to arbitrate
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled
for 2010.
|
Lewis v. City of Chicago
|
In disparate impact case, is Title VII statute of limitations measured from announcement, or use, of
unlawful practice?
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled
for 2010.
|
Health Care Service Corporation v.
Pollitt, et al.
|
Whether Federal Employees Health Benefits Act preempts state law claims
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled
for 2010.
|
New Process Steel v. National
Labor Relations Board
|
Is the NLRB authorized to act when only two of its five
positions are filled?
|
|
Decided
January 21, 2009
|
Locke v. Karass
|
Held: Supreme Court allows local union to
charge non-members for national litigation expenses
|
Decided
March 9, 2009
|
Vaden v. Discover Bank
|
Held:
Arbitration: Federal court may “look through” a §4 petition to
determine whether it is predicated on a controversy that “arises under”
federal law; however, a federal court may not entertain a §4 petition based on
the contents of a counterclaim when the whole controversy between the parties
does not qualify for federal-court adjudication. [Not
an employment law case.]
|
Decided
January 26, 2009
|
Crawford v. Metropolitan Government
of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
|
Held: Answering
questions during employer's internal investigation is protected against
retaliation
|
Decided
January 26, 2009
|
Kennedy v.
Plan Administrator for Dupont Savings and Investment Plan
|
Held:
ERISA plan administrator must pay according to plan documents
|
Decided
February 24, 2009
|
Ysursa, Idaho Secretary of
State v. Pocatello Education Association
|
Held: State ban on political payroll deductions, as
applied to local governmental units, does not infringe unions' 1st amendment
rights.
|
Decided
April 1, 2009 |
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett
|
Held: A provision in a
collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union
members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.
|
Decided
May 15, 2009
|
AT&T Corporation v. Hulteen
|
Held: Seniority system insulates retirement
calculations based on pre-PDA rules that differentiated on the basis of
pregnancy (7-2)
|
Decided
June 18, 2009 |
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. |
Held:
Burden-shifting "mixed motives" instruction is never proper
in an ADEA case
|
Decided
June 29, 2009 |
Ricci v. DeStefano |
Held: City violated Title VII by discarding
racially disproportionate test results (5-4)
|
