Seyfarth Synopsis: As reported here, for the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings regarding Article III standing in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (“TransUnion”), the Workplace Class Action blog is providing a...more
Supreme Court Decides Freedom of Speech Trumps Public Accommodations Law In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, No. 21-476 (June 30, 2023), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed 6-3 the lower courts' denial of the injunction the plaintiff...more
The US Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury (the Departments) recently issued a proposed rule (the proposed rule) to eliminate a moral exemption to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) contraceptive mandate...more
In a historic move, both chambers of Congress have approved legislation protecting the right of same-sex couples to get married, and President Biden is expected to quickly sign the bill into law. The U.S. House of...more
EEOC takes a stand on bathrooms and gender identity. Well, not the whole Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Just the chair, Charlotte Burrows (D), who has issued non-binding guidance on sexual orientation and gender...more
Last summer, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which held that the protected classification of “sex” under Title VII included sexual orientation and gender identity....more
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn., No. 18-540: Arkansas’ Act 900 regulates the price at which pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) reimburse pharmacies for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans....more
On December 10, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tanzin v. Tanvir, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their...more
A few weeks ago, we told you the story of Hannah and Bob, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark holding that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being gay,...more
On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing employers’ religious freedoms in very different contexts: one concerning whether religious school teachers could challenge adverse employment...more
On July 8, 2020, in the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al. and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al., the U.S. Supreme...more
Several recent cases concern challenges to executive orders relating to COVID-19 limiting the ability of churches to assemble and imposing other limitations. Beginning with appellate decisions, these cases are summarized in...more
On Wednesday, July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether religious employers are required to offer their employees health plans that include contraceptive coverage. In its opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor v....more
The Supreme Court just upheld two Trump-era rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate. The July 8 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania is just...more
In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court this week upheld regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) that...more
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 decisions involving religious exemptions to federal employment and benefits laws....more
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that employers may exclude coverage for birth control from their health plans based upon moral or religious objections to contraception. ...more
Until this week, federal law required most insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control without a copay. However, the history behind this issue can be traced back much further....more
On July 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services validly created...more
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the United States Supreme Court held that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” With its decision, however, the Supreme Court...more
HR Professionals will soon know the answer to this question. The United States Supreme Court is preparing to settle a contentious debate on employee protections under federal employment discrimination laws. On October...more
On April 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will consider whether federal anti-discrimination law applies to LGBTQ employees, granting judicial review to two (2) sexual orientation discrimination cases and one...more
Since 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly construed a neutral law of general applicability as consistent with the free exercise clause. Deeming Colorado's public accommodations law just such a law, the Colorado Court...more
Timely Topics - The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, No. 15-577. The lawsuit concerns whether the daycare operated by a Missouri church may qualify...more
In a recent Supreme Court case, Zubik v. Burwell, the justices vacated and remanded six federal appellate judgements on whether an accommodation (described below) for employers that object to providing contraceptive coverage...more