On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided whether an employer’s obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are triggered only when an applicant has informed the employer of his or her...more
The Supreme Court of the United States is poised to decide a case that should clarify employers’ obligations to provide applicants with accommodations for their religious practices. Simply put, the question is whether...more
On April 29, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided whether—and the extent to which—courts may review efforts made by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to resolve discrimination claims with...more
On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States settled a controversy surrounding an employer’s policy that provided light-duty work for certain employees (including some disabled employees) but not for pregnant...more
In the coming months, the Supreme Court of the United States will determine the level of judicial review, if any, that will be applied to employers’ pre-litigation negotiations with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity...more
On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which requires an agency to use the notice-and-comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when issuing a...more
3/10/2015
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Legal History ,
Mortgage Loan Officer ,
Notice and Comment ,
Paralyzed Veterans Doctrine ,
Perez v Mortage Bankers Assoc ,
SCOTUS ,
Wage and Hour
With its forthcoming decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to bring some much-needed clarity to the issue of what the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42...more
2/25/2015
/ Collective Bargaining ,
Discrimination ,
Essential Functions ,
PDA ,
Pregnancy ,
Pregnancy Disability Leave Law ,
Pregnancy Discrimination ,
SCOTUS ,
Sex Discrimination ,
Trucking Industry ,
Unions ,
UPS ,
Young v United Parcel Service
On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided whether a federal air marshal, who publicly disclosed that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had decided to cut costs by removing air marshals...more
On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a long-standing dispute between the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the remainder of the federal judiciary in a case concerning the extent to which...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States declined review of a state supreme court case that has sparked widespread flux in the landscape of class action arbitration waivers in California. In Iskanian v. CLS...more
1/21/2015
/ American Express v Italian Colors Restaurant ,
AT&T Mobility v Concepcion ,
Class Action ,
Class Action Arbitration Waivers ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Contract ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Iskanian ,
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses ,
Preemption ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Trucking Industry
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
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the time workers spend waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)....more
Are the federal government’s subsidies to purchasers of health insurance available only to those who purchase insurance from state-run exchanges or to those who purchase from federal health care exchanges as well? Was the...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a public-employee union from collecting an agency fee from home-care workers who do not want to join or...more
On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a fiduciary of an “employee stock ownership plan” (ESOP) is subject to the same duty of prudence that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)...more
Does a collective bargaining agreement that requires nonunion home-care workers to pay a fee to a union representative violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? In the next few days the Supreme Court of the United...more
Declaring that “public employees do not renounce their citizenship when they accept employment,” the Supreme Court of the United States held today that the First Amendment protects a public employee’s truthful sworn...more
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it would not review two wage and hour cases. The first, Catsimatidis v. Irizarry, which was resolved through a settlement agreement, considered whether an...more
On Monday, March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to decide whether a company was required to pay overtime compensation to its workers for the time they spent passing through a security clearance at the...more