Big Decisions: The 2014-15 U.S. Supreme Court Term in Review

by Faegre Baker Daniels
Contact

The 2014-15 United States Supreme Court term featured a number of significant cases to the business community. The Faegre Baker Daniels appellate advocacy group is committed to helping our clients understand the Court’s rulings in these cases and the implications for their businesses.

The following is just a sample of the cases decided this term. Summaries of all of the cases reviewed by FaegreBD’s appellate advocacy team from the Supreme Court term ending in June, can be viewed here.

EMPLOYMENT  – PREGNANCY  DISCRIMINATION

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court held that a pregnant worker who seeks to show disparate treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) may do so under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework if the employer accommodates others “similar in their ability or inability to work.”

With this new standard in place, employers should review their accommodation practices and policies and carefully analyze policies that provide accommodation for any type of non-pregnancy-related medical condition but do not offer accommodation to pregnant workers. Note also that this case pre-dated the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008 under which even relatively minor impairments and restrictions may constitute disabilities if they are other than temporary. Some courts have found, for example, that a pregnancy-related restriction against “heavy lifting” is arguably a disability under the ADAAA. Now, with Young, employers will likely face both ADAAA and PDA claims for non- accommodation of pregnant workers.

STATE TAXATION – INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne

On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court held that Maryland’s personal-income-tax scheme, which does not give state residents a full credit for income taxes that they pay to other states, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The unconstitutional law caused some of the income that Maryland residents earn outside the state to be taxed twice, thus creating an incentive for the state’s taxpayers to opt for intrastate rather than interstate economic activity.

This scheme failed what is known as the “internal-consistency test.” Internal consistency is preserved, the Court has said, when the imposition of a tax identical to the one in question by every other state would add no burden to interstate commerce that intrastate commerce would not also bear. The affirmation of internal consistency is important for corporate taxpayers. Had the Court abandoned the test, it would have created adverse consequences in apportionment and other types of tax cases.

EMPLOYMENT – RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court held that to prevail on a disparate-treatment claim based on religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a job applicant need show only that the applicant’s need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had actual knowledge of the need.

Reversing summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie, the Court stated that “the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION – DISPARATE

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court held that a disparate-impact claim is cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. The Court added, however, that “[a] plaintiff who fails to allege facts at the pleading stage or produce statistical evidence demonstrating a causal connection cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate impact.” Furthermore, even when courts find liability under a disparate-impact theory, the Court admonished that their “remedial orders must be consistent with the Constitution,” and should focus on eliminating the offending practice that operates to discriminate on the basis of race.

Following this decision, state agencies and real estate developers should carefully consider the effects of their low-income housing allocation decisions on minority communities and be prepared to justify their actions.

HEALTH INSURANCE – AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

King v. Burwell

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court held that tax credits authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) are available to individuals who purchase insurance through a federal exchange.

The ACA states that tax credits are available to individuals who enroll in a health insurance plan “established by the State,” and plaintiffs argued that a federal exchange did not satisfy that definition. Ultimately, the context and structure of the ACA compelled the Court to depart from what would otherwise have been the most natural reading of the plain language of the statute. Such an interpretation avoided what the Court characterized as the “calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid,” namely, the destabilization of the insurance markets in states with federal exchanges.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Obergefell v. Hodges

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses guarantee same-sex couples the right to marry in all states and require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Although the Court rejected the states’ arguments on all questions presented, it emphasized that the First Amendment ensures that opponents of same-sex marriage “may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction.” Left open by the decision are, in Chief Justice John Roberts' words the “[h]ard questions” that will arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same- sex marriage.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION – CLEAN AIR ACT

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency

On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA acted unreasonably, and hence unlawfully, when it refused to take costs into account in deciding whether to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by power plants under the Clean Air Act. The Court acknowledged that there are settings in which the statutory phrase “appropriate and necessary” does not encompass cost, but said, “this is not one of them,” because agencies “have long treated cost as a centrally relevant factor when deciding whether to regulate.”

The implications of this ruling are important for challenges to EPA’s upcoming Clean Power Plan regulations, which are due to be finalized in August 2015. Michigan marks the second time in two terms that a Supreme Court majority has taken the unusual step of limiting deference to EPA’s regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Faegre Baker Daniels | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Faegre Baker Daniels
Contact
more
less

Faegre Baker Daniels on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.