U.S. Supreme Court - Labor & Employment Decisions (2008 - 2009 Term)

The following is a review of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to labor and employment issues for the 2008 - 2009 term.

Ricci v. DeStefano
Issue Presented:  Did the City of New Haven, Connecticut, violate the rights of white firefighters under the 14^th 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

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

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

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.

Read the Court’s decision