The Supreme Court’s 2013-2014 Term

by Franczek Radelet P.C.
Contact

The Supreme Court’s 2013-2014 term opened yesterday. In this term, the Court will hear and decide a number of cases affecting employers, including two key cases focusing on labor-management relations. The labor and employment cases on the Court’s docket for the 2013-2014 term include the following:

  • N.L.R.B. v. Noel Canning: This case addresses the validity of President Obama’s 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of members Richard Griffin, Terrence Flynn and Sharon Block. The D.C. Circuit held that these appointments were unconstitutional because they did not occur during an intersession recess of the Senate. The issue before the Court is whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions. This case should decide whether the actions and decisions of the NLRB since the date of the appointments, January 3, 2012, will be invalidated. For more information, please see our recent Franczek Radelet alerts on the Court’s decision to accept the case and the recent compromise between the U.S. Senate and President Obama on nominations for the NLRB.
  • Harris v. QuinnThe Supreme Court has long approved collective bargaining agreements that compel non-union members to financially support the costs of collective bargaining representation, as well as other related costs, as long as they are not used to support political candidates or views. In Harris, a group of in-home health care workers, who, by Illinois state law, are considered state employees for purposes of collective bargaining, elected by majority vote to be represented by a union. The resulting collective bargaining agreement with the State covered workers who had not voted for union representation and required all workers to pay a fair share of union dues. A group of workers who opposed union representation brought suit, challenging the requirement that they pay union dues as a violation of their First Amendment rights. Harris may lead the Court to reconsider its prior decisions requiring all covered employees, not just union members, to pay the portion of union dues that support collective bargaining representation.
  • Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355: At times, unions and employers enter into neutrality agreements, where the employer promises to remain neutral to union organizing and grants limited access to the employer’s property and employees in exchange for the union’s agreement to forego its rights to picket, boycott or otherwise put pressure on the employer’s business. At issue in this case is whether such an agreement violates Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 186. The Act makes it unlawful for employers “to pay, lend, or deliver, or agree to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value…to any labor organization.” The issue is whether organizing neutrality or assistance provided by the employer to the union is a “thing of value” and so prohibited by the statute. This case may significantly alter the ability of employers and unions to enter into neutrality and card check agreements. For more information, please see our recent Franczek Radelet alert on the Court’s decision to accept the case.
  • Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.: The Court will consider what constitutes “changing clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under §203(o) of the FLSA, an employer need not compensate a worker for time spent changing clothes if that time is excluded from compensable time under a collective bargaining agreement. However, also under the FLSA, an employee must be paid for engaging in a “principal activity,” and putting on and taking off safety gear required by the employer may be a principal activity if it is an integral and indispensable part of the activities for which the worker is employed. In this case, employees at U.S. Steel Corp in Gary, Indiana brought suit under the FLSA claiming that they should be compensated for time spent changing into their work gear and traveling back and forth to the locker room. They argued that what they change into—flame retardant pants and jacket, work boots, hard hat, safety glasses and ear protection—was safety gear, not clothing as contemplated by the FLSA. The Court of Appeals disagreed and denied the claims. This case may clarify when an employer must pay employees for putting on and taking off safety gear at the beginning and end of their shifts.
  • Madigan v. Levin: At issue in this case is whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) precludes state and local government employees from bringing constitutional claims of age discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a departure from the holdings of numerous other courts of appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that such constitutional claims are not precluded. This case will determine whether state employees have a federal damages remedy for age discrimination claims because state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment prevents state employees from recovering damages under the ADEA.
  • Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative ActionLast term, the Court considered whether the University of Texas’s use of affirmative action in university admissions violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. (For more information about the Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, please see our most recent Franczek Radelet alert on the case..) In Schuette, the Court will revisit the topic of affirmative action to determine whether a voter-approved ban on the use of affirmative action is constitutional.  The case involves a challenge to Proposal 2, an amendment to the Michigan Constitution approved by voters in 2006, which bans the use of racial preferences in admission decisions for public universities in Michigan. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ban as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In doing so, it created a split among the circuits to have considered this issue:  in 1997 and again in 2012, the Ninth Circuit upheld a similar voter-approved ban on the use of affirmative action by California’s higher education institutions. The Court’s decision on the legality of voter-approved affirmative action bans in this context may affect employer affirmative action and diversity programs, especially for public employers.  

 

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.

© Franczek Radelet P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Franczek Radelet P.C.
Contact
more
less

Franczek Radelet P.C. 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.