Recent and Pending Labor, Employment, and Education Cases before the U.S. Supreme Court
Jump to 2008-2009 opinions | Jump to pending cases
Issues Before The Court:
PENDING CASES:
Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson
Issue
Presented: Whether a district court, rather than an arbitrator, must decide whether an
arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act is unconscionable,
despite a provision in the agreement giving arbitrators the exclusive authority
to resolve disputes over enforceability of the agreement.
Status: Accepted for review January 15, 2010.
Ontario, Cal. v. Quon
Issue
Presented: Whether a police sergeant assigned to a SWAT team has a reasonable expectation
of privacy in text messages transmitted on a Police Department-issued pager and
stored by an outside service provider, where the Department has an official
no-privacy policy but where an informal policy of allowing some personal use of
the pagers existed.
Status: Accepted for review December 14, 2009.
New Process Steel, LP v. NLRB
Issue
Presented: Whether the National Labor Relations Act authorizes the National
Labor Relations Board to act when only two of its five positions are filled.
Issue Presented: When an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African-Americans in violation of Title VII’s disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file the charge within 300 days after the employer’s use of the discriminatory practice?
Status: Accepted for review September 30, 2009.
Conkright v. Frommert
Issue Presented: Do federal courts have an obligation to defer to ERISA plan administrators' interpretations of their plans if the administrators arrive at their interpretation outside the context of an administrative claim for benefits? Does a federal district court have "allowable discretion" to adopt any "reasonable" interpretation of the terms of an ERISA plan when the plan interpretation issue arises in the course of calculating additional benefits due under the plan as a result of an ERISA violation?
Status: Accepted for review June 29, 2009.
Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters
Issue Presented: Does a federal court have jurisdiction to determine the existence of a binding collective bargaining agreement? Does Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act provide an employer with a cause of action against an international union for allegedly interfering with the employer’s collective bargaining agreement with a local union affiliated with that international?
Status: Accepted for review June 29, 2009.
Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp.
Issue Presented: Can arbitration of class claims be required when a contractual arbitration provision does not expressly address class action arbitrations?
Status: Accepted for review June 15, 2009.
Perdue v. Kenny
Issue Presented: Can a court increase an attorney fee award under a federal fee shifting statute based solely upon the quality of performance and results obtained by the plaintiff’s attorney?
Status: Accepted for review April 6, 2009.
Salazar v. Buono
Issues Presented: Does an individual have Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and is an Act of Congress directing the land be transferred to a private entity a permissible accommodation?
Status: Accepted for review February 23, 2009.
2008-2009 OPINIONS:
Ricci v. DeStefano
Issue Presented: Did the City of New Haven, Connecticut, violate the rights of white firefighters under the 14th Amendment and federal civil rights laws when it threw out the results of firefighter promotional examinations because black candidates disproportionately failed the tests?
Status: Decided June 29, 2009.
Result: The Court held that the City violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by throwing out the results of the promotion examination after white candidates scored significantly better than minority candidates. According to the Court, the City’s decision to discard the test results, even if well-intentioned, constituted intentional race discrimination because it was clearly based on the racial breakdown of the test results. At the same time, the Court held that governmental entities can take actions that are themselves based on race for the purpose of remedying past racial discrimination, but only where there is a “strong basis in evidence” that such actions are necessary. Having concluded that the City’s actions violated Title VII, the Court declined to address whether those same actions were unconstitutional.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court's decision
Speaker of Arizona House of Rep. v. Flores and Horne v. Flores
Issues Presented: Has Arizona taken "appropriate action" to overcome barriers to English-language learning (ELL) in its schools, and does Arizona's compliance with the specific ELL requirements of No Child Left Behind satisfy the EEOA's more general "appropriate action" requirement?
Status: Decided June 25, 2009.
Result: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts incorrectly placed a heightened standard on the state to demonstrate that a sufficient change in circumstance had occurred to warrant dismissal of the order. In particular, the Court held that the lower courts incorrectly focused on the state’s funding scheme, rather than looking at other factors that may demonstrate that the defendants were now taking appropriate action to address the needs of its ELL students.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court's decision
Safford U.S.D. #1 v. Redding
Issues Presented: Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of school policy, and may a public school administrator be liable in a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conducting a search of the student?
Status: Decided June 25, 2009.
Result: By an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the strip search of a 13-year-old middle school girl violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches, because the search did not even raise a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing. The Court also held, 7-2, that the school officials who conducted the search were entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not clearly established at the time of the search that it would violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court did not address the issue of whether the school district was also entitled to qualified immunity, and remanded to the lower court on that question.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court's decision
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. V. T.A.
Issue Presented: May parents of a student who has never previously received special education services from a school district be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for reimbursement of private school tuition? (Note: the Court granted certiorari to resolve this question in its last term in Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. (06-637), but affirmed the opinion below by an equally divided vote.)
Status: Decided June 22, 2009.
Result: In a 6-3 decision that makes it easier for parents to be reimbursed for private school tuition for special education students, the United States Supreme Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not categorically prohibit reimbursement of private education costs for children who have never received special education and related services from a public school.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court's decision
Gross v. FBL Financial Services
Issue Presented: Must a plaintiff present direct evidence of discrimination to obtain a mixed-motive jury instruction in a case under the ADEA?
Status: Decided June 18, 2009.
Result: By a five-vote majority, the Court held that the mixed-motive framework does not apply to ADEA claims.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court’s decision
AT&T v. Hulteen
Issue Presented: Did AT&T violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act by failing to credit a female retiree with time on maternity leave taken before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act took effect in 1978, for purposes of calculating her pension benefits?
Status: Decided May 18, 2009.
Result: By a 7-2 vote, the Court held that AT&T’s pension calculations did not violate Title VII, because the calculations were pursuant to a bona fide seniority system.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court’s decision
14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett
Issue Presented: Can an employee be required to submit a discrimination claim to arbitration based upon an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement?
Status: Decided April 1, 2009.
Result: By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement that clearly requires arbitration of age discrimination claims is enforceable.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court’s decision
Pleasant Grove City, Utah V. Summum
Issue Presented: Under the First Amendment, does the placement of privately donated monuments in a public park qualify as private speech, or is it government speech that is subject to First Amendment scrutiny?
Status: Decided February 25, 2009.
Result: By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that the placement of a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.
Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Assoc.
Issue Presented: Did a state’s ban on payroll deductions for political contributions by unions, as applied to local governmental units, infringe upon union’s First Amendment rights?
Status: Decided February 24, 2009.
Result: By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that the state’s ban on the use of payroll deductions to support union political contributions, did not infringe upon unions’ First Amendment rights.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court’s decision
Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville
Issues Presented: Can a school district employee maintain a retaliation lawsuit under Title VII based upon alleged retaliation for statements made in response to an employer’s internal sexual harassment investigation?
Status: Decided January 26, 2009.
Result: By a 9-0 vote, the Court held that Title VII does prohibit retaliation against employees who report sexual harassment in response to an employer’s internal investigation.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court’s decision
Kennedy v. DuPont Plan Administrator
Issues Presented: Does ERISA preempt state law holding that a spouse’s right to the other spouse’s pension benefits becomes invalid upon divorce?
Status: Decided January 26, 2009.
Result: By a 9-0 vote, the Court held that ERISA does preempt state law regarding a spouse’s right to benefits under an ERISA pension plan.
Read our detailed summary | Read the Court’s decision
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee
Issue Presented: Does Title IX’s implied right of action provide an exclusive remedy for claims of gender discrimination in federally-funded academic institutions, therefore limiting the right to bring a separate claim for a violation of the constitutional right to Equal Protection?
Status: Decided January 21, 2009.
Result: By a 9-0 vote, the Court held that Title IX does not preclude a §1983 action alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools, because Congress intended Title IX to be interpreted to allow for parallel and concurrent §1983 claims.
Locke v. Karass
Issue Presented: Can a state require public employees who are not union members but who are included in a bargaining unit represented by a labor organization to pay agency fees for litigation expenses outside the bargaining unit?
Status: Decided January 21, 2009.
Result: By a 9-0 vote, the Court held that the Constitution allows a local unit of a labor union to charge workers who are not members fees to help cover lawsuit expenses of the union at the national level, so long as those lawsuits involve issues that could have been pursued if they had involved only local conditions—such as litigation related to collective bargaining—and the charge is reciprocal in nature—meaning that the contributing local reasonably expects other locals to contribute similarly to the national’s resources for costs of similar litigation on behalf of the contributing local if and when it takes place.
Supreme Court Review 2008-2009
To download the Franczek Radelet Review of the Court's labor & employment decisions, click here.