Pending cases at the US Supreme Court:
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro – Whether “service advisors” at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. §213(b)(10)(A) from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirements. Argument date to be scheduled. [Opinion below] [Briefs] [Blog] [Casetext]
- CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC – Whether a dismissal of a Title VII case, based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s total failure to satisfy its pre-suit investigation, reasonable cause, and conciliation obligations, can form the basis of a attorney’s fee award to the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). [Opinion below] [Briefs] [Blog] [Casetext] Oral argument March 28, 2016.
Note: SCOTUSblog has asked me to write an argument preview a week before the argument, an argument analysis right after the argument, and an opinion analysis once the case is decided.
- Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association – (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech. [Opinion below] [Briefs] [Blog] [Blog] [Casetext – Symposium] Oral argument January 11, 2016. [Transcript] [Audio]
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo – Whether class or collective actions can be certified where liability and damages will be determined with statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample, and the class contains members who were not injured. [Opinion below] [Briefs] Oral argument November 10, 2015. [Transcript] [Audio]
- Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians – Whether Indian tribal court has jurisdiction over an intern’s claim that the manager of a store on tribal land sexually molested him while he was working there. [Opinion below] [Briefs] [Blog] Oral argument December 7, 2015. [Transcript] [Audio]
- Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez – Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy an individual plaintiff’s claim moots that claim, and also moots a class action. [Opinion below] [Briefs] [Blog] [Transcript] [Audio] Oral argument October 14, 2015. [Transcript] [Audio]
- Green v. Brennan – Whether, under federal employment discrimination law, the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begins to run when an employee resigns, or at the time of an employer’s last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation. [Opinion below] [Briefs] [Blog] Oral argument November 30, 2015. [Transcript] [Audio]
- Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan – Does a lawsuit by an ERISA fiduciary against a participant to recover an alleged overpayment by the plan seek “equitable relief” within the meaning of ERISA section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), if the fiduciary has not identified a particular fund that is in the participant’s possession and control at the time the fiduciary asserts its claim? [Opinion below] [Briefs] [Blog] Oral argument November 9, 2015. [Transcript] [Audio]
- Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company – Whether ERISA preempts Vermont’s health care database law as applied to the third-party administrator for a self-funded ERISA plan. [Opinion below] [Briefs] Oral argument December 2, 2015. [Transcript] [Audio]
- Heffernan v. City of Paterson – Whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor’s perception that the employee supports a political candidate. [Opinion below] [Briefs] Oral argument January 19, 2016. [Transcript] [Audio]
MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski – Whether California’s arbitration-only severability rule is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. [Opinion below] [Briefs] Oral argument was removed from the Court’s schedule because the parties are in the process of settling.
Decisions during 2014-2015 session:
- EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores – An employer can be liable under Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant based on a “religious observance and practice” even if the employer lacks actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required, so long as the need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. June 1, 2015. [Blog]
- Tibble v. Edison International – ERISA trustee’s continuing duty to monitor investments determines when statute of limitations begins to run. May 18, 2015. [Blog]
- Mach Mining v. EEOC – Courts may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit, yet the scope of review is deferential. April 29, 2015. [Blog]
- Young v. United Parcel Service – If a pregnant woman can’t do her regular job and asks for a light duty assignment, and many (but not all) other workers get light duty as an accommodation for a disability or on-the-job injury, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act may require that the employer also accommodate the pregnant woman. March 25, 2015. [Blog]
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assoc – A federal agency [Department of Labor] need not engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act before it significantly alters an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation. March 9, 2015. [Blog]
- M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett – When a collective bargaining agreement is silent concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits, courts should apply ordinary contract principles, and not presume that silence means the parties intended those benefits to vest. January 26, 2015.
- Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean – Whistleblower’s disclosures, which were contrary to TSA’s regulations
on sensitive security information, were not “specifically prohibited by law,” because regulations do not qualify as “law” under the whistleblower statute. January 21, 2015.
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk – Time spent in post-shift security screenings is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. December 9, 2014. [Blog]