Tag: Supreme Court

Supreme Court to Decide Whether ADA Permits Former Employees to Sue for Post-Employment Benefits

The Supreme Court of the United States recently granted certiorari in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida—a case about whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permits former employees to sue for alleged discrimination in providing post-employment fringe benefits.  The case has practical significance for employers.  If the Court finds that the ADA does apply […]

Harm Doesn’t Have to Be Significant: What to Watch for in Promotion and Demotion

In a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in which a police sergeant alleged she was transferred from one job to a less desirable job in the police department because of her sex. About the Case The sergeant was transferred out of the intelligence division where she had worked for several years […]

Supreme Court Hands NLRB a Piping Hot Wake-Up Call

A mostly unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) request for preliminary injunctive relief while unfair labor practice charges are pending is to be evaluated by the same standards as any other injunction request. The ruling in Starbucks v. McKinney rejected the Board’s position that its requests should be […]

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Key Exemption Issue

On June 14, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide an important Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) question—namely, whether an employer claiming an exemption from overtime needs to prove it by “clear and convincing” evidence (a very high standard) or by a preponderance of the evidence (a lower, easier standard to meet). The decision is […]

NLRB in Court: SCOTUS Revises Injunction Standards, Other Standards Under Review

In a ruling widely considered a victory for employers, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the standards for assessing an application by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a 10(j) injunction should be the same as used in other civil injunction applications. Although widely anticipated as bringing harmony to an area with numerous “circuit […]

U.S. Supreme Court Building

The Supreme Court and Chevron: Five Fast Facts for Employers

We have been monitoring and awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on (what is known as) the Chevron doctrine. You can read more about the doctrine here. On June 28, the Supreme Court issued its decision and overruled the doctrine, which had been in place for more than four decades. For a number of reasons, this decision has and […]

Supreme Court Lowers Bar for Adverse Actions

Can an employee sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to challenge a lateral transfer, even if the transfer doesn’t result in a loss of pay? According to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the answer is yes. Employers transfer employees, or take other actions, for a variety of reasons. Until […]

How Much Harm Is Enough? Transfer Supports Title VII Discrimination Claim

In a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, there was no question that the complaining employee was moved out of her position because of her gender, but she suffered no loss of pay or rank. So the Court had to determine whether she was still able to maintain an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of […]

Texas Supreme Court Gives Drafting Lesson on Employee Write-Ups

A recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court provides a valuable lesson for employers on how to draft employee discipline. Let’s start by examining law theory and then move on to look at how to put theory into practice. Legal Theory An important concept in Texas employment law is causation in a retaliation claim. For […]

Alleged Whistleblower Must Only Prove Protected Activity Was ‘Contributing Factor’

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) found that former employees who filed a federal whistleblower retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) must only show the protected activity was a “contributing factor” to the employer’s adverse employment decision. Significantly, the Court found whistleblowers need not show “retaliatory intent”—in contrast […]