Below is a summary of US Supreme Court decisions during 2007-2008.
LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc.
The Court held that an individual pension plan participant could sue the plan administrator under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty resulting in a loss to the employee’s retirement funds.
Preston v. Ferrer
Where an agreement requires arbitration, The Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s Talent Agencies Act (TAA) where the TAA grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Labor Commissioner to decide the validity of a contract between an actor and his talent agent.
Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn
Mendelsohn alleged Sprint unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of age. She alleged she was selected for termination because of her age during a company-wide reduction in force. In her appeal, Mendelsohn argued she should have been able to introduce evidence of discrimination against other employees, sometimes called “me-too” evidence. The Court held that “me-too” evidence of discrimination is admissible at trial, but that the district court has discretion regarding whether to admit such evidence.
Federal Express Corporation v. Holowecki
Holowecki completed an EEOC Intake Questionnaire alleging certain FedEx policies violated the ADEA. She, however, did not file a formal charge with the EEOC. The Court held that an employee need not use the EEOC’s official form to effectively exhaust the mandatory requirement of filing a charge. It is sufficient that the employee has made a request for the agency to take remedial action.
Hall Street Associates v. Mattel
Where an arbitration agreement allowed courts the right to vacate or modify an arbitration decision when the arbitrator’s conclusions of law are erroneous, the arbitration agreement is invalid. The Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act provides the exclusive, limited grounds upon which an arbitration decision can be modified.
Gomez-Perez v. Potter
Gomez-Perez worked for the U.S. Postal Service and claimed management took negative personnel actions against her in retaliation for a prior age discrimination complaint. The Court held that the ADEA’s provisions applicable to federal employees include protection from retaliation.
CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries
42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits race discrimination in the formation of contracts, including employment agreements. This statute does not mention retaliation claims. Humphries claimed he was fired due to his race and his discrimination complaint against a co-worker. The Court held that a § 1981 retaliation claim could proceed even though the statute does not explicitly prohibit retaliation.
Chamber of Commerce v. Brown
CA enacted a law prohibiting employers that receive funds from the state from using those funds to promote or deter union organizing. The Court held that the National Labor Relations Act protected an employer’s right to communicate regarding unionization. Because the CA law interfered with the employer’s right, the CA law is preempted by the NLRA.
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Knolls laid off 31 employees, 30 of whom were age 40 or older. Meacham filed an age discrimination claim under the ADEA. The Court held that the employer has the burden of proof to show that its decision was not age based, but rather was predicated on “reasonable factors other than age.”
Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC
Kentucky’s pension play provided benefits to employees who became disabled before retirement. The plan added a certain number of years to a participant’s length of service if the participant became disabled before retirement age. Once the employee reached 55, the plan no longer added the “imputed” years of service. The EEOC alleged that the plan violated the ADEA because it failed to add imputed years for those 55 and older. The Court held the plan did not violate the ADEA because it concluded that the purpose of the plan was assist disabled employees and not to penalize employees of a certain age.
Pending Cases for the upcoming term
The Court will review several employment cases. Among those are whether Title VII protects from retaliation those employees who participate in an organization’s internal investigations of unlawful discrimination or harassment, whether a divorcing spouse may waive her right to benefits under an ERISA retirement plan, whether a collective bargaining agreement may contain an arbitration clause waiving an individual employee’s right to sue in court under anti-discrimination laws, and whether employers are required to restore service credits under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act calculated before the passage of the PDA.
