|
Status |
Case Name
Link to summary and briefs |
Issue |
Decided
December 8, 2009 |
Union Pacific
Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General
Committee of Adjustment, Central Region
|
Held:
Pre-arbitration conference is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to National
Railway Adjustment Board arbitration
|
Decided
April 27, 2010
|
Stolt-Nielsen S.A.,
et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
|
Held: Imposing class arbitration on parties who have
not agreed to it violates Federal Arbitration Act (5-3) [Not
an employment law case.]
|
Decided
March 30, 2010
|
Graham
County Soil & Water v. US ex rel Wilson
|
Held: Qui tam suit is barred by prior disclosure
in county and state reports (7-2).
|
Decided
April 21, 2010
|
Conkright v. Frommert
|
Held: ERISA Plan administrator's interpretation is
entitled to deference even after reversal for violating ERISA (5-3).
|
Decided
June 21, 2010
|
Granite Rock Company v. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters
|
Held: Court, not arbitrator,
decides CBA's ratification date; new cause of action for tortious
interference rejected
|
Decided
May 24, 2010
|
Lewis v. City of Chicago
|
Held: In disparate
impact case, the use of an earlier unlawful employment practice states a
claim.
|
Decided
June 17, 2010
|
New Process Steel v. National
Labor Relations Board
|
Held: NLRB
cannot act when only two of its five positions are filled (5-4)
|
Decided
June 17, 2010
|
City of Ontario v. Quon
|
Held: Search of police pager text messages was
reasonable, so no 4th amendment violation
|
Decided
June 21, 2010
|
Rent-A-Center West v.
Jackson
|
Held: Arbitrator, not
court, decides whether arbitration agreement is unconscionable (5-4)
|
Decided
May 24, 2010
|
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life
Insurance Company
|
Held: ERISA claimant
can get attorney fees if there is "some
degree of success on the merits."
|
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled.
|
National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson
|
Did NASA's background investigations violate federal
contract employee’s constitutional right to informational privacy?
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled.
|
Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics Corp
|
Whether an oral complaint is protected conduct under FLSA's anti-retaliation
provision
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled.
|
Staub v. Proctor
Hospital
|
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?
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled.
|
AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion
|
Whether Federal Arbitration Act preempts state
unconscionability law
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled.
|
Mayo Foundation for Medical
Education and Research v. United States
|
Can IRS categorically exclude medical residents from the student exemption
from Social Security tax?
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled.
|
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Candelaria
|
Preemption of Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled.
|
CIGNA Corporation v. Amara
|
ERISA claim for inconsistency between SPD and the actual
Plan
|
Oral argument
to be scheduled.
|
Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
|
Does Title VII create a cause of action for third-party retaliation for persons who did not themselves engage in protect activity?
|
|
|
Certiorari DENIED 06/28/2010
|
Golden Gate Restaurant Assoc v.
City and County of San Francisco
|
Whether ERISA preempts local laws mandating employer contributions for employee
health-benefits
|
Case settled, removed
from docket February 24, 2010.
|
Health Care Service Corporation v.
Pollitt, et al.
|
Whether Federal Employees Health Benefits Act preempts state law claims
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
