Labor & Employment Law: Supreme Court Decisions
Sponsored Links
- Beck v. PACE Int'l Union 551 U.S. ___ (2007) (Merger is not a permissible method of terminating a single-employer defined-benefit pension plan under ERISA. )
- Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord 538 U.S. 822 (2003) (ERISA does not require plan administrators making disability determinations to accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians, over other evidence relevant to the claimant's medical condition.)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (An employee who refuses unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor (but suffers no real job consequences) may recover against the employer without showing the employer is at fault for the supervisor's actions.)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White 548 U.S. ___ (2006) (The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. The provision covers those, and only those, employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant.)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (Section 1 of the FAA, which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce", is confined to transportation workers and does not exempt all employment contracts from the FAA's reach as was held below.)
- Cleveland Bd. of Ed. V. LaFleur 414 U.S. 632 (1974) (Ohio public school mandatory maternity leave rules for pregnant teachers violate constitutional guarantees of due process.)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (Direct evidence of discrimination is not required for a plaintiff to obtain a mixed-motive jury instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
- Dothard v. Rawlinson 433 U.S. 321 (1977) (In a case brought by a woman whose application for employment as a prison guard in Alabama was rejected, the court ruled that Title VII prohibited application of Alabama's statutory height and weight requirements to appellee and the class she represents. )
- EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the EEOC from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an ADA enforcement action.)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (An employer may be liable for sexual discrimination caused by a supervisor, but liability depends on the reasonableness of the employer's conduct, as well as the reasonableness of the plaintiff victim's conduct.)
- Frontiero v. Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973) (Department of Defense regulations granting certain benefits to the dependents of servicemen but not to the dependents of servicewomen were unconstitutional.)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos 547 U.S. ___ (2006) (When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.)
- Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline 540 U.S. 581 (2004) (The ADEA's text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statutes show that the statute does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one. Thus, it does not protect plaintiffs-employees, all between 40 and 50 years old, who were denied health benefits under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (Certain education requirements and intelligence tests used as conditions of employment acted to exclude African-American job applicants, did not relate to job performance, and were prohibited.)
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 535 U.S. 137 (2002) (Federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the NLRB from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who has never been legally authorized to work in the United States but has been terminated from his US job in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX's private right of action encompasses claims of retaliation against an individual because he has complained about sex discrimination.)
- Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987) (Ruling that a county transportation agency appropriately took into account an employee's sex as one factor in determining whether she should be promoted.)
- LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc. ___ U.S. ___ (2008) (Although section 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, that provision does authorize recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant's individual account.)
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. 550 U.S. ___ (2007) (In a suit raising a pay discrimination claim under Title VII, a court of appeals' decision reversing a judgment and award in plaintiff's favor is affirmed where plaintiff's claim was untimely because a pay-setting decision is a discrete act that occurs at a particular point in time, and the later effects of past discrimination do not restart the clock for filing an EEOC charge.)
- Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke 551 U.S. ___ (2007) (In the context of the Fair Labor Standards Act's statutory exemption of certain "companionship" workers from the statute's minimum wage and maximum hours rules, a Department of Labor regulation that interprets such exemption to include "companionship" workers "employed by an ... agency other than the family or household using their services" is valid and binding.)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green 411 U.S. 793 (1973) (Established the framework for a prima facie case in a private, non-class-action complaint under Title VII charging racial employment discrimination.)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (Finding that a claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that may be brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (A Title VII plaintiff must file his discriminatory or retaliatory employment claims within the appropriate 180- or 300- day period, but a hostile work environment charge is not time barred if all acts underlying the claim are part of the same unlawful practice, and at least one act falls within the filing period; equitable doctrines may toll or limit either period.)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Sorrell 549 U.S. ___ (2007) (In cases under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), railroad negligence and employee contributory negligence are governed by the same causation standard.)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment can form the basis for a valid claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (To establish "constructive discharge," plaintiff must prove a work environment so hostile as to merit resignation as a fitting response. Defendants may assert affirmative defenses in a case alleging constructive discharge, unless plaintiff quit in response to an official change in her employment status.)
- Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi 544 U.S. 228 (2005) (Although the "disparate-impact" theory of recovery, for cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is cognizable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the disparate-impact theory's scope is narrower under the ADEA than under Title VII.)
- Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (To be "substantially limited in a major life activity" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives rather than just to a particular job.)
Ads by FindLaw