On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to weigh in on whether gender dysphoria can qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), allowing to stand the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Williams v. Kincaid, which extended ADA protection to transgender people experiencing gender dysphoria.
As the first federal appellate decision of its kind, Williams had — and will continue to have — a significant impact on employers (covered by Title I of the ADA), and places of public accommodations (covered by Title III of the ADA).
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re recapping recent contentious rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS” or the “Court”) that are expected to take a toll on employers across the nation.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state legislatures across the country have accelerated their discussion of new laws either restricting or further protecting access to abortions. A state senate bill in South Carolina, S. 1373 currently pending in the Senate Committee on Medical Affairs, would not only ban almost all abortions in that state, but would also afford novel whistleblower protections. Specifically, S. 1373 imposes criminal penalties, punishable by imprisonment for ten years, for persons who “take any action to impede a whistleblower from communicating about a violation of this article with the Attorney General, a solicitor, or any other person authorized to bring an action in violation of this article.”
The Court has decided the latest in a series of important cases interpreting the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §§ 1 et seq.
On March 31, in Badgerow v. Walters, by an 8-1 majority (opinion written by Justice Kagan, and a lone dissent by Justice Breyer), the Court reversed an order of the Fifth Circuit and held that the federal courts do not have authority to “look through” an arbitration dispute for a federal question that would establish jurisdiction to confirm or deny an arbitral award.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re looking at how employment laws and regulations are being impacted by the Biden administration’s recent actions on the international and national stages.
The Supreme Court’s January 24, 2022 decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, has caused alarm in some corners, with panicked predictions of a proliferation of ERISA suits alleging that defined contribution plans provided imprudent investment options. However, Hughes should be more properly understood as rejecting an attempt by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to impose a novel limit on excessive fee suits. The Supreme Court instead emphasized the application of its existing precedent in Tibble v. Edison International, 575 U.S. 523 (2015).
The Seventh Circuit had dismissed a class action complaint alleging the trustees of Northwestern Universities’ retirement plans breached their fiduciary duties by including imprudent investments among the investment options offered under the plans. The trustees offered more than 400 various investment options, several of which the plaintiffs asserted were imprudent and many of which were not. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ allegations failed as a matter of law (that is, could be dismissed without discovery or trial) because plaintiff’s preferred investment options were available under the plan (albeit alongside the allegedly imprudent options). Therefore, the Seventh Circuit considered the trustees to be blameless for any fiduciary breaches because the plaintiffs simply could have avoided the allegedly imprudent investments and chosen the prudent ones.
As explained in greater detail by our colleague Stuart M. Gerson, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down two major, and quickly decided, rulings on January 13, 2022. After hearing oral arguments only six days earlier, the Court issued two unsigned decisions per curiam. A 5-4 decision in Biden v. Missouri dissolved a preliminary injunction against enforcement of an interim final rule (“Rule”) promulgated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), requiring recipients of federal Medicare and Medicaid funding to ensure that their employees are vaccinated against COVID-19.
On the evening of Wednesday, December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will hold a special session on January 7, 2022, to hear oral argument in cases concerning whether two Biden administration vaccine mandates should be stayed. One is an interim final rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”); the other is an Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). The CMS interim final rule, presently stayed in 24 states, would require COVID-19 vaccination for staff employed at Medicare and Medicaid certified providers and suppliers. The OSHA ETS, which requires businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure that workers are vaccinated against the coronavirus or otherwise to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing, was allowed to take effect when a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, to which the consolidated challenges had been assigned by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, issued a ruling on December 17, 2021, lifting a stay that had been previously entered by the Fifth Circuit. Multiple private sector litigants and states immediately challenged the decision.
In recent years, wage discrimination has been a hot topic and with it, the question of whether employers may rely on a worker’s salary history to justify a pay disparity between male and female employees. In a 2018 case involving the federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), Rizo v. Yovino, (about which we wrote here), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) ruled that employers may not rely on prior salary to excuse unequal pay. On petition, the Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded the case on a technical ground (i.e., because the judge who ...
In a recent 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, in Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 590 U.S. __ (2020), held that participants in defined benefit pension plans lack standing to sue plan fiduciaries for allegedly imprudent plan investments where the participants continue to receive their full benefits and no imminent risk that they will cease receiving their full benefits appears.
Defined benefit plans—once the staple of employer-sponsored retirement plans but now a diminishing share of that group—guarantee a monthly payment in retirement using a formula based on years of service and ...
This Employment Law This Week® Monthly Rundown discusses the most important developments for employers in August 2019.
This episode includes:
- Increased Employee Protections for Cannabis Users
- First Opinion Letters Released Under New Wage and Hour Leadership
- New Jersey and Illinois Enact Salary History Inquiry Bans
- Deadline for New York State Anti-Harassment Training Approaches
- Tip of the Week
See below to watch the full episode – click here for story details and video.
We invite you to view Employment Law This Week® – tracking the latest developments that could ...
This Employment Law This Week® Monthly Rundown discusses the most important developments for employers in July 2019. Both the video and the extended audio podcast are now available.
This episode includes:
- State Legislation Heats Up
- NLRB Overturns Another Long-Standing Precedent
- SCOTUS October Term 2018 Wraps Up
- Tip of the Week: How inclusion and trust can increase innovation in the workplace
See below to watch the full episode - click here for story details, the video, and the extended audio podcast.
Stay tuned: Sign-up for email notifications and subscribe to the ...
On June 4, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of a Christian Colorado baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who had refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious objections to gay marriage.
Although the case previously had been litigated on free speech grounds, the Court’s opinion largely avoids this constitutional question, and does not address whether Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Instead, the decision focuses on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s decision finding against Masterpiece Cakeshop and ...
On May 31, 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review of an April decision permitting transgender students to use sex-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity. The Fourth Circuit encompasses North Carolina; thus, the case G.G. v. Gloucester County Public School Board (“Gloucester County”), although it arose in Virginia, creates a conflict between federal law and North Carolina’s House Bill 2 (“HB2”), which requires transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match the gender listed on their birth ...
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean. MacLean was a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee who, without authorization, disclosed to a reporter the otherwise unpublicized termination of missions related to hijack prevention. He claimed he was disclosing a matter related to public safety. He was fired pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Homeland Security Act, 116 Stat. 2135. That Act provides that the TSA “shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information . . . if the ...
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean. MacLean was a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee who, without authorization, disclosed to a reporter the otherwise unpublicized termination of missions related to hijack prevention. He claimed he was disclosing a matter related to public safety. He was fired pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Homeland Security Act, 116 Stat. 2135. That Act provides that the TSA “shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information . . . if the ...
While by most accounts the current term of the Supreme Court is generally uninteresting, lacking anything that the popular media deem to be a blockbuster (the media’s choice being same-sex marriage or Affordable Care Act cases), the docket is heavily weighted towards labor and employment cases that potentially affect employers in all industries including retail, health care, financial services, hospitality, and manufacturing. In chronological order of argument they are as follows.
The Court already has heard argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions ...
While by most accounts the current term of the Supreme Court is generally uninteresting, lacking anything that the popular media deem to be a blockbuster (the media’s choice being same-sex marriage or Affordable Care Act cases), the docket is heavily weighted towards labor and employment cases and a few that potentially affect retail employers in particular. They are as follows.
The Court already has heard argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, No. 13-433, which concerns whether the Portal-to-Portal Act, which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act, requires ...
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions: “Divided Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Harris and Hobby Lobby.”
Following is an excerpt:
As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either ...
As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either opinion.
In Harris v. Quinn, the conservative majority of the Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, held that an Illinois regulatory program that required quasi-public health care ...
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions: “Divided Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Harris and Hobby Lobby.”
Following is an excerpt:
As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either ...
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions: “Divided Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Harris and Hobby Lobby.”
Following is an excerpt:
As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either ...
Our colleague Amy B. Messigian at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Decision Sets High Bar for Establishing Retaliation Claims Under Title VII” on the Health Employment and Labor blog, and we think retail employers will be interested.
Following is an excerpt:
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, one of two employment-related opinions issued on Monday by the Supreme Court, a narrow majority held that a retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved according to a strict but for causation ...
Our colleague Amy B. Messigian at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Decision Sets High Bar for Establishing Retaliation Claims Under Title VII” on the Health Employment and Labor blog, and we think hospitality employers will be interested.
Following is an excerpt:
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, one of two employment-related opinions issued on Monday by the Supreme Court, a narrow majority held that a retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved according to a strict but for
Our colleague Amy B. Messigian at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Decision Sets High Bar for Establishing Retaliation Claims Under Title VII” on the Health Employment and Labor blog, and we think financial services employers will be interested.
Following is an excerpt:
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, one of two employment-related opinions issued on Monday by the Supreme Court, a narrow majority held that a retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved according to a strict but for
In a 5-4 decision the dissent termed “decidedly employer-friendly,” the Supreme Court held on June 24, 2013 that only employees who have been empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against a harassment victim constitute “supervisors” for the purpose of vicarious liability under Title VII. Per the holding in Vance v. Ball State University, employees who merely direct the work activities of others, but who lack the authority to take tangible employment actions, will no longer be considered supervisors under Title VII.
Under ...
Our colleague Julie Saker Schlegel at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Holds That Only Employees Who Have Authority to Take Tangible Employment Actions Constitute Supervisors for the Purpose of Vicarious Liability Under Title VII” on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog, and we think financial services employers will be interested. Following is an excerpt:
In a 5-4 decision the dissent termed “decidedly employer-friendly,” the Supreme Court held on June 24, 2013 that only employees who have been empowered by the employer to take tangible ...
By: John F. Fullerton III and Douglas Weiner
The current prevalence of lawsuits for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by employees who claim they were misclassified by their current or former employer as “exempt” from overtime has been well-documented. These lawsuits continue to present challenges to employers, not just in terms of the burdens and costs of defending the cases, but in the uncertainty of the potential financial exposure. As our colleagues have previously reported (here and here), there are two methods in which the ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Video: SCOTUS Expands Title VII, EEOC’s Final PWFA Rule, AI Screening Tools - Employment Law This Week
- EEOC Final Rule Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
- Podcast: Navigating Physician Non-Compete Litigation – Employment Law This Week
- Maryland Expected to Expand Pay Transparency Requirements in Fall 2024
- Video: Union Reps at OSHA Inspections, New COVID-19 Guidance, and Minimum Wage Updates - Employment Law This Week