Court: U.S. Supreme Court

by

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits “disparate treatment”, or intentional discrimination, based on religion by making it unlawful for an employer to, among other things, “fail … to hire … any individual … because of such individual’s … religion”. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1) (emphasis added). In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie &…

Read More U.S. Supreme Court Revives Muslim’s Bias Claim Against Abercrombie
Share This:
by

In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1338 (March 25, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted and applied a portion of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act relating to accommodations that covered employers must make to pregnant workers. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of…

Read More U.S. Supreme Court Interprets Title VII’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act; Vacates Judgment Against Pregnant Employee
Share This:
by

The U.S. Supreme Court held, in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk (Dec. 9, 2014, Justice Thomas) that the time spent by Amazon.com warehouse workers undergoing anti-theft security screening before leaving the warehouse each day is not compensable time under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In sum: [A]n activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities…

Read More Amazon.com Security Checks Not Compensable Time, Supreme Court Holds
Share This:
by

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held, in Riley v. California (decided together with U.S. v. Wurie) that the police may not conduct a warrantless search of the digital contents of a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Justice Roberts’ tour through the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence culminates with this terse observation:…

Read More Police Need Warrant to Search Cell Phones’ Digital Contents, U.S. Supreme Court Holds
Share This:
by

In Lane v. Franks, decided June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court (per Justice Sotomayor) squarely held that the First Amendment protects a public employee who provides truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities.  In upholding petitioner Lane’s retaliatory termination claim, the Court applied its precedents, including Pickering v. Bd.…

Read More SCOTUS Holds That Public Employee’s Sworn Testimony Was Protected by First Amendment
Share This:
by

In Lawson v. FMR, the Supreme Court recently broadened the reach of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was enacted following the collapse of Enron Corporation. The whistleblower portion of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, provides: No [public] company . . . , or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent…

Read More Supreme Court Holds That Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act Protects Employees of Private Contractors
Share This:
by

In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Supreme Court – in an opinion authored by Justice Scalia – considered the meaning of the term “changing clothes” as used in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). That statute provides: Hours Worked. In determining for the purposes of [29 U.S.C. §§ 206,…

Read More The Supreme Court Tells Us What “Changing Clothes” Means
Share This:
by

Oral argument is scheduled in the Supreme Court today in the case of Lawson and Zang v. FMR, LLC (information here).  The decision below is Lawson v. FMR, LLC, 670 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012). The case concerns the scope of protection provided by the “whistleblower” section (Section 806) of the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C.…

Read More SCOTUS Hears Oral Argument on Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Protects Employees of Privately-Held Contractors or Subcontractors of Public Companies
Share This:
by

I came across this and thought it was interesting, if only because it is believed to be the only time a U.S. Supreme Court Justice said “Happy Halloween” from the bench. During oral argument on October 31, 2005 in the case of Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 126 S. Ct. 990 (2006), the following exchange took…

Read More Judge Scalia: Halloween Fan
Share This:
by

Below is today’s Supreme Court decision in U.S . v. Windsor, which holds section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. That section, codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7, provides: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of…

Read More SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA Section 3: U.S. v. Windsor
Share This: