Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

EEO/iNews from the United States Supreme Court - Thursday, May 14, 2009

EEO/iNews from the United States Supreme Court - Thursday, May 14, 2009
Source: iNews © 2009 John D. Sargent, All Rights Reserved _____________________________________________________
EEO/iNews provides weekly links to Internet news related to employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, retaliation, FRD and LGBT. Some links may have expired or require sign-up or subscription.

EEO/iNews is a free publication of EEO Services by John D. ?Jack? Sargent. Mr. Sargent retired as a Supervisory Trial Attorney from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2004. EEO/iNews is not a publication of the EEOC. Mr. Sargent is not associated with the EEOC. This is information, not legal advice. Please do not rely on EEO/iNews for analysis of any issue. We are not responsible for news content. Some links may have expired or require sign-up or subscription. Mr. Sargent is not compensated for news connected to a service or product. Mr. Sargent relies on free Internet sources for EEO/iNEWS. EEO/iNEWS contents do not necessarily reflect the views of Mr. Sargent.

Please direct corrections, comments, questions, subscription requests and inquiries to Mr. Sargent at eeoinews@yahoo.com. Corrections will be published as soon as practicable

Ø Public Citizen?s most recent Sup Ct Watch list here
Ø SCOTUSblog?s most recent Petitions to Watch here
Ø Ross Runkel?s US Sup Ct Employment Law Cases ? Pending & decided here

Petition for Cert Granted:

Decided

Crawford v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, No. 06-1595
Title VII/retaliation: (From SCOTUSwiki): The Court unanimously concluded that the ordinary meaning of ?oppose? includes giving a ?disapproving account? of unlawful behavior, even if the employee takes no further action on her own to seek to stop or remedy the conduct. Accepting the rule set forth in the EEOC?s Compliance Manual, the Court concluded that ?When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in . . . a form of employment discrimination, that communication virtually always constitutes the employee?s opposition to the activity.? The Court held open the possibility of ?eccentric cases? in which the employee makes clear his approval of the conduct in conveying the information (for example, describing a racist joke as hilarious probably wouldn?t count as opposing the joke-telling).

o January 26, 2009 decision here
o SCOTUS docket here
o SCOTUSwiki here

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, No. 07-581
Enforceability of collectively bargained arbitration clause
(From SCOTUSwiki): Justice Thomas?s majority opinion held that nothing in either the National Labor Relations Act, which controls collective bargaining agreements made on behalf of union members, or the ADEA forbids unions from mandating arbitration to resolve statutory discrimination claims. The majority touted the importance of allowing parties to bargain contractually for exchanges of rights and responsibilities, and it noted that courts should generally not interfere in this process. According to the majority, ?[t]he decision to fashion a [collective bargaining agreement] to require arbitration of employment-discrimination claims is no different from the many other decisions made by parties in designing grievance machinery.?

· April 1, 2009 decision here
· SCOTUS docket here

Noted here: HR.BLR.COM; Blank Rome; Pepper Hamilton; Dorsey & Whitney

Argued - Awaiting Decision

AT&T v. Hulteen, No. 07-543
Title VII/Denial of pre-?79 pregnancy leave service credits in computing pension
o December 10, 2008 Argument Transcript here
o SCOTUS docket here
o SCOTUSwiki here
o Noted here: Work Place Prof Blog and Ross Runkel, each noting post-argument briefs on the effect of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on the case

Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs, No. 08-441
ADEA/Must a plaintiff present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case?
o March 31, 2009 Argument Transcript here
o SCOTUS docket here
o SCOTUSwiki here

Ricci v. Destefano>, No. 07-1428 and 08-328
Title VII/Whether municipalities may decline to certify results of an exam that would make disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion than minority applicants, due to fears that certifying the results would lead to charges of racial discrimination

o April 22, 2009 Argument Transcript here
o SCOTUS docket here
o SCOTUSwiki here
o Cornell Law School/LII here
o Noted here: Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Selected Cases Pending Cert:

Lewis v. Chicago, No. 08-974
TVII - Timeliness
See issue description at Public Citizen
o SCOTUS docket here

Oakley v. City of Memphis, No. 08-744
T VII
See issue description at Public Citizen:
o SCOTUS docket here

Baxter Healthcare Corp v. White., No. 08-960
T VII
See issue description at Public Citizen
o SCOTUS docket here

McKnight v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 08-1113
ADA
See issue description at Public Citizen
o SCOTUS docket here

Adam v. Salazar, No. 08-1097
ADEA
See issue description at Public Citizen
o SCOTUS docket here

Lewis, et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974
TVII
See issue description (+briefs links) at SCOTUSblog
o SCOTUS docket here

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 16, 2009 (boomark / email).