Supreme Court of the United States

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 -
News & Analysis as of

Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Security Screening Time is Not Compensable Under FLSA

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that an employer was not required to pay its non-exempt employees for time spent waiting to go through security screenings at the end of the workday. In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc....more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Post-Shift Employee Security Screenings are Not Compensable Under the FLSA

On December 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk holding that employees' time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not...more

Supreme Court Rules That Time Spent Clearing a Security Checkpoint Is Not Compensable Under the FLSA

In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 2014 WL 6885951(U.S. Dec. 9, 2014), the Supreme Court held that time employees spend waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable work time under the...more

Supreme Court Finds that Post-Shift Employee Security Screenings Noncompensable Activity Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Last week, in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the United States Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous opinion holding that post-shift employee security screenings were noncompensable activities under the Fair...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Fairness Act’s Removal Requirement: 'Liberal Rules' Do Not Require Evidence of Amount in...

Class action defendants need not include evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in...more

Supreme Court 2014 Patent Preview

On average, the U.S. Supreme Court historically hears fewer than one patent case each term. For example, in the 14 years between 1982 and 1995, the Court decided only five patent cases. In the seven years between 1995 and...more

Employment & Labor Update - Supreme Court Approves Employers’ Right To Conduct Security Screening Without Wage Liability

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that employers have no obligation to pay their employees for time spent undergoing security screenings when those screenings are not integral to the employees’ job duties. Busk et al. v....more

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Removing Class Actions to Federal Court

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719, a case involving the procedural requirements for removing a class action from state to federal court under the Class...more

After-hours Time Spent by Employees for Required Security Checks Is Not Integral to the Employees’ Job and Not Compensable under...

In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk et al., the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that workers who fill orders in Amazon.com warehouses need not be paid for the time they are required to spend waiting...more

U.S. Supreme Court Eases CAFA Removals

Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005, in response to perceived (in fact real) concerns regarding potential abuses of the class action process. Among CAFA’s important provisions was the right to remove...more

Labor & Employment E- Note - December 2014

In This Issue: - SCOTUS Says Firms Don't Have to Pay for Security Screening Time - EEOC Saw Decline in Discrimination Settlements, Number of Cases - HHS Closes Loophole Allowing Employers to Cut Hospital...more

Supreme Court Opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719. Unsurprisingly, the Court held that a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act does not need to...more

Are Postliminary Activities No Longer Compensable after the Supreme Court's Decision this Week?

In a unanimous decision on December 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that the time employees spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings post-shift (approximately 25 minutes each day) is not...more

Supreme Court to Decide Whether License Agreements May Require Payment of Royalties After Patent Expiration

The U.S. Supreme Court Friday agreed to revisit a longstanding precedent that bars patent owners from collecting royalties after their patents have expired, even if those post-expiration payments represent compensation for...more

Supreme Court Decides Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719, holding that a notice of removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and the Class...more

SCOTUS Rules CAFA Removal Notices Need Contain Only a Plausible Allegation That Amount in Controversy is Satisfied

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a critical issue regarding Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) removals. Specifically, the Supreme Court settled a controversy surrounding what...more

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Whether Post-Patent Term Royalty Schemes Lawful

On Friday, December 12, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 13-720, opening the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964),...more

The Gift-Giving Season? Three “Game-Changing” Employment Developments Impacting Manufacturers

The approaching holidays may have put Congress, the National Labor Relations Board and the United States Supreme Court in the “gift-giving” mood. In the last week, three significant developments occurred which may radically...more

American Broadcasting Co. v. Aereo and its Aftermath

The U.S. Copyright Act in 17 USC 106 specifically gives copyright owners the exclusive right to control “performances” of their works. 17 USC 101 defines public performance as including “transmission” of the work. In 17 USC...more

Supreme Court Simplifies Removal from State Courts

Yesterday, the Supreme Court relieved decades of uncertainty concerning the filing requirements for removal of cases to federal court from state court by holding that a defendant is required only to file “a short and plain...more

Supreme Court Holds That Defendants Need Not Submit Evidence with a Notice of Removal Under the Class Action Fairness Act

To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the defendant must “file … a notice of removal … containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Under the Class Action...more

Understanding Halliburton in Light of Recent Supreme Court Jurisprudence

In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that, alone and certainly in the aggregate, have significantly impacted the ability of plaintiffs to initiate and maintain class actions. By and large,...more

"Supreme Court Rules No Evidence Required to Remove Cases to Federal Court, Rejects Presumption Against Federal Jurisdiction in...

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed an important question governing the procedure for removing cases to federal court — whether a defendant must attach evidence in support of key jurisdictional facts, such as the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Security Screening Time is Non-Compensable Under Federal Law and The Portal-to-Portal Act

In a decision issued on Tuesday, December 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled that employees are not entitled to compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for the time they spend waiting to...more

Employment Alert: U.S. Supreme Court - Federal Wage Law Does not Apply to Wait Time for Security Screening of Employees

In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, et al. (Integrity), No. 13-433, the Supreme Court of the United States held the time spent by warehouse workers waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not...more

3,508 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 141