News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Hiring & Firing

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
PilieroMazza PLLC

Supreme Court Opens Door to Broader Spectrum of Employment Discrimination Cases

PilieroMazza PLLC on

In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring an employee to a new position with the same rank and pay may constitute an adverse action under Title VII. The recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS 2023/24 Lookback and Preview: 8 Key Rulings that Impact the Workplace and 4 New Cases for Employers to Track Next Term

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS to Ponder Proof in Wage Misclassification Case: 5 Steps for Employers to Comply with Overtime Exemption Rules

Fisher Phillips on

What evidence does an employer need to show a court to prove it correctly classified employees as exempt from minimum wage and overtime pay? The Supreme Court announced on June 17 that it will address a disagreement among...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Employment Claims

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more

Polsinelli

No Harm, No Foul: The Supreme Court Reduces “Harm” Standard for Discriminatory Job Transfer Claims under Title VII

Polsinelli on

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that to sustain a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), plaintiffs do...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

US Supreme Court Applies Strict Test for NLRB Injunctions

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

In unusual circumstances arising during unionization campaigns, the National Labor Relations Board can seek a so-called Section 10(j) injunction to immediately order the employer or union to cease illegal acts associated with...more

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Does U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Starbucks Signal Greater Restriction on the Powers of the National Labor Relations...

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. on

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, decided on June 13, 2024, arose out of the discharge of several Starbucks employees who formed a union organizing committee...more

Foley Hoag LLP

The National Labor Relations Board Loses Deference in Pursuit of Preliminary Injunctions

Foley Hoag LLP on

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing split among circuit courts when it issued a ruling in a high-profile labor dispute between Starbucks and the NLRB. The case originated in Memphis, Tennessee, where,...more

Cranfill Sumner LLP

NLRB No Longer Enjoys Preferential Preliminary Injunction Treatment

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

On June 13, 2024, the United States Supreme Court held in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, No. 23-367, that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must satisfy the Winter test to secure a preliminary injunction. The Winter...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

Supreme Court Confirms More Stringent Test Before Granting Section 10(j) Injunctions In Rare Win For Employers

CDF Labor Law LLP on

Earlier this week, in Starbucks v. McKinney, 602 U.S. ____ _2024), the Supreme Court resolved a disagreement among federal appeals courts on how requests for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor...more

FordHarrison

Injunctive Relief is Injunctive Relief: In a Sweeping Victory for Employers, SCOTUS Rules Standard for 10(j) Relief No Different...

FordHarrison on

Executive Summary: On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of Starbucks, and employers alike, holding that when district courts consider a request for preliminary injunction under...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Supreme Court Rules NLRB 10(j) Injunctions Must Meet Higher Preliminary Injunction Standard in Blow to NLRB

Epstein Becker & Green on

In Starbucks v. McKinney, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the “Act”)....more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Supreme Court Heightens Relief Standard For NLRB To Obtain 10(j) Injunctions

Ballard Spahr LLP on

A unanimous decision from the United States Supreme Court, issued on June 13, 2024, settles the split among the circuit courts concerning the factors to be considered by a court in considering a request by the National Labor...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Delivers Starbucks a Win in Labor Dispute: Here’s How the Ruling Impacts Employers

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court just sided with Starbucks in a case where the Labor Board tried to force the company to temporarily reinstate workers who were fired for hosting media interviews afterhours in a closed store. Starbucks said...more

Franczek P.C.

Recent Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Lower Standard of Harm for Job Transfers under Title VII

Franczek P.C. on

In a recent decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining whether an adverse employment action is a sufficient basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII of the...more

Maynard Nexsen

Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 19: Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in the Workplace with Stephanie Mays,...

Maynard Nexsen on

For episode 19, Tina and Christy welcome Maynard Nexsen labor & employment attorney Stephanie Mays, who also serves as the Chief Talent Officer for the firm. We dive into the Students for Fair Admissions cases and how it...more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Employers Beware: Title VII Now Allows Employees to More Easily Challenge Your Decision to Transfer or Reassign Them

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more

DirectEmployers Association

OFCCP Week In Review: May 2024 #3

DirectEmployers Association on

Monday, May 13, 2024: Coalition of 18 Republican States’ Attorney Generals Filed Suit to Challenge EEOC’s Harassment Guidance - A coalition of 18 Republican state attorney generals (“AGs”), led by Tennessee Attorney...more

Miller Canfield

Michigan Supreme Court Expands Liability Under Anti-Discrimination Statute; Endorses Third-Party Retaliation Theory

Miller Canfield on

“Third party” or “associational” retaliation is reprisal taken by an employer against someone other than the person who engaged in “protected conduct.” In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s anti-retaliation...more

Littler

Littler Lightbulb: April Appellate Roundup

Littler on

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month....more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

No More Adjectives… Just Some Harm: Supreme Rules on Title VII Job Transfer Threshold

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

The U.S. Supreme Court Lowers the Standard for an Employee to Prove Workplace Discrimination from an Involuntary Job Transfer

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, 601 U.S. _____ (2024), which addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating whether a job transfer – even where the...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

U.S. Supreme Court: Alleging Discriminatory Transfer Is Sufficient Harm to Bring Title VII Claim

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be...more

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Supreme Court Holds That Discriminatory Transfer Claims Under Title VII Do Not Require Proof of “Significant” Harm

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP on

Recently, the United States Supreme Court unanimously determined that under certain circumstances, an intra-company job transfer can form the basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII. This opinion alters the legal...more

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court Modifies Title VII's Adverse Action Standard

Jones Day on

The Court's decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis requires plaintiffs to prove "some injury" respecting employment terms or conditions in discrimination cases....more

506 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 21
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide