Supreme Court

Subscribe to Supreme Court via RSS

Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009)

Jack Gross worked for FBL as a claims administration director until he was reassigned to the position of claims project coordinator. At the time of his reassignment, many of Gross’s job responsibilities were transferred to a newly created position (claims administration manager) that was filled by Lisa Kneeskern, one of…

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 129 S.Ct. 2658 (2009)

One hundred eighteen firefighters took written examinations administered by the city of New Haven, Connecticut in order to qualify for promotion to the rank of lieutenant or captain. When the examination results showed that white candidates had outperformed minority candidates, the mayor and other local politicians opened a public debate that “turned rancorous.” Some…

Yesterday, in a highly anticipated 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Ricci v. DeStefano that the City of New Haven engaged in unlawful intentional race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) when it discarded a firefighter promotional test because of the racial makeup of the successful test takers. The City claimed that the test had a disparate impact on minorities and that, if it certified the test results and proceeded with promotions, it would have been sued for discrimination by minority test takers. The Court held that the City had to show a strong basis in evidence that it would be liable in such a suit – something more than the statistical results of the test – in order to justify throwing out the test and discriminating against the successful test takers, most of whom were white. It further held that, upon its review of the factual record, the City could not meet this burden. Reversing the Second Circuit (which had affirmed the trial court decision), it found that summary judgment should be entered against the City. The factual background of the case, opinion of the Court and the implications of the case for employers are discussed below.

In an important ruling that increases the burden on plaintiffs in cases under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the United States Supreme Court held on June 18, 2009 that plaintiffs in age discrimination cases always bear the burden of proving that an adverse employment action would not have been taken against them “but for” their age. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441. This ruling draws a distinction between the ADEA and Title VII, under which plaintiffs need only show that their membership in a protected class was a “motivating factor” in an employer’s action, and eliminates any shifting of the burden of persuasion in so-called “mixed motive” cases under the ADEA.

In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court has held that AT&T did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) when it based its calculation of employees’ pensions in part on a pre- PDA accrual rule that treated pregnancy leave less favorably than other forms of disability leave. AT&T Corp v. Hulteen, No. 07-543 (May 18, 2009). The Court’s decision reversed the Ninth Circuit and confirmed the presumption that discrimination statutes will not be applied retroactively.

Background

Plaintiffs were Noreen Hulteen and three other AT&T employees who had taken pregnancy leave before April 29, 1979, the effective date of the PDA. At the time they took leave, AT&T based employee pension benefits on a seniority system (i.e., a system based on length of service) that provided less service credit for pregnancy leaves than it did for other forms of temporary disability leave. When the PDA took effect, AT&T changed its system and began to provide full service credit for pregnancy leaves. It did not, however, retroactively adjust the accrued service credits of Plaintiffs or any other employees who previously had taken pregnancy leave. Therefore, when those employees retired, they received an overall pension amount that was less than it would have been if AT&T had afforded full service credit to their pre-PDA pregnancy leaves.

Plaintiffs and their union filed suit against AT&T in the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the PDA. Plaintiffs argued that it was unlawful for AT&T, in the present day, to apply a seniority-based pension system that incorporated antiquated pre-PDA accrual rules that had differentiated on the basis of pregnancy. Doing so, Plaintiffs contended, carried forward the old service credit differential so as to produce a disparate effect in the amount of the pension benefits of employees who had taken pre-PDA pregnancy leave. The district court agreed, holding that AT&T had engaged in unlawful pregnancy discrimination, and the Ninth Circuit, en banc, affirmed. Because the Ninth Circuit’s decision directly conflicted with rulings from other circuits, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split.

Proskauer Prevails As The Court Holds That Collectively Bargained Agreements for The Arbitration of Statutory Discrimination Claims are Enforceable

On April 1, 2009, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Proskauer Rose’s client 14 Penn Plaza LLC, holding that a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law. The Court’s decision validates the right of an employer and a union to negotiate about the way disputes can be resolved, even when those disputes involve individual statutory rights. Accordingly, 14 Penn Plaza LLC. v. Pyett, is significant to all employers who have collective bargaining relationships.

Proskauer negotiated the CBA at issue on behalf of the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc., (“RAB”) and handled this litigation on behalf of 14 Penn Plaza — from the district court through argument of the matter before the Supreme Court by Paul Salvatore, co-chair of Proskauer’s Labor and Employment Law Department.

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 128 S. Ct. 2408 (2008)

Assembly Bill 1889, enacted in 2000, prohibited private employers that receive state funds – whether by reimbursement, grant, contract, use of state property or pursuant to a state program – from using such funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” Violators were to be liable to the state for the…

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 554 U.S. 84, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008)

When the United States government ordered Knolls (one of the contractors that maintains the nation’s fleet of nuclear-powered warships) to reduce its workforce, the company conducted an involuntary reduction in force, resulting in the layoff of 31 employees, 30 of whom were age 40 or older. Twenty-eight of the laid-off…

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003)

Curtis and Inez Campbell sued their automobile insurance carrier (State Farm) for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after State Farm declined to settle within the $50,000 policy limit a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit that had been filed against Curtis Campbell. Although State…