Court: U.S. Supreme Court

by

In Heffernan v. City of Paterson, No. 14-1280 (decided April 26, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a circuit court decision that affirmed the dismissal of a police officer’s First Amendment retaliation case arising from his punishment for engaging in what was (incorrectly) perceived as protected political activity. Justice Breyer authored the opinion; Justices Thomas…

Read More SCOTUS Holds That First Amendment Retaliation Case May Continue, Despite Employer’s Incorrect Belief that Employee Engaged in Protected Political Activity
Share This:
by

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016. Many disagreed with the outspoken justice’s politics; some were happy to see him go. Many compilations of his opinions/dissents (such as this one or this one) appear to highlight his conservative ideology. Unsurprisingly missing from many such compilations is his opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner…

Read More Justice Scalia: Civil Rights Champion?
Share This:
by

In Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, 2015 WL 2473451 (U.S. June 26, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that “a State has no constitutional obligation to license same-sex marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of State.” Justice Kennedy reversed that decision, holding that the…

Read More SCOTUS Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
Share This:
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: