Supreme Court Strengthens Exception Barring Employment Discrimination Suits Against Religious Entities
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has reinforced the protections afforded to religious organizations against employment discrimination lawsuits. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, (pdf) the Court unanimously held that the so-called “ministerial exception” included in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other employment law statutes prevents a former religious school teacher who taught a full secular curriculum as well as a daily course on religion and regularly led students in prayer and worship – from bringing ADA claims against her employer, as she qualified as a ministerial employee even if the majority of her duties involved secular instruction.
As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court has .jpg)
In a decision favorable to employers, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in .jpg)
The Supreme Court has held that an Arizona law that imposes sanctions on employers that hire unauthorized workers and requires the mandatory use of E-Verify is not preempted by federal law, and therefore valid. The Arizona law at issue – the Legal Arizona Workers Act – provides for the suspension or revocation of an employer’s business license in that state if that employer knowingly or intentionally hires an unauthorized worker. The statute also mandates the use of the E-Verify electronic verification system to check on an employee’s work eligibility. The Court’s decision in .jpg)
The Supreme Court has issued a decision in .jpg)
In an opinion favorable to employers who use arbitration agreements, the Supreme Court in .jpg)
The FLSA 
In an opinion that potentially expands an employer’s liability in discrimination cases, the Supreme Court has found that an employer can be found liable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) for the discriminatory intent of company officials who influenced – but did not make – the ultimate adverse employment decision. In 
In a decision that may subject employers to more retaliation lawsuits, the Supreme Court in 
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court in .jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Treasury Department rule that considers medical residents as full-time employees subject to Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll taxes. In .png)
On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court heard .jpg)
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides that it is unlawful "to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint ... under or related to this Act." .jpg)
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case challenging NASA’s background checks of “low risk” private contractors working at the agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). At first blush, the case does not appear to be particularly relevant to private employers given that NASA is a public employer and the appeal will turn principally on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal constitutional right to information privacy applicable only to public employers. Deeper consideration suggests, however, that the Court’s decision could have significant implications for private sector employers. Continue reading this entry at Littler's 
As expected, the Senate on Thursday confirmed by a vote of 63 to 37 the nomination of U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice. President Obama named Kagan as his pick to replace retiring justice John Paul Stevens on May 10, 2010. Kagan’s confirmation process has been relatively uncontroversial. Because she has never served in a judicial capacity, her views on various topics – including labor and employment issues – could not be gleaned from past opinions. Kagan will be the fourth woman to ever serve on the high court, and historically one of three to be sitting on the nine-member bench at one time. It is largely believed that Kagan will maintain the Court’s current ideological balance. Information on Kagan’s work history, responses to hearing questions, and letters and materials sent and received in connection with her nomination can be found .jpg)
This week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide two additional employment-related cases for the next judicial term. On Monday, the Court announced that it will hear arguments in Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. of Am. V. Candelaria, in which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit .png)
On June 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rent-A-Center (“RAC”) in .jpg)
On June 24, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pro-employer opinion in .png)
Potentially invalidating hundreds of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) requires that the NLRB must operate with at least three members in order to exercise its full authority. In .jpg)
As anticipated in Littler's Workplace Privacy Counsel's .png)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts states from conditioning the enforceability of an arbitration agreement on the availability of class-wide arbitration when that procedure is not necessary to ensure that parties to the agreement are able to vindicate their claims. The case at issue – AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (09-893) – concerns a consumer contract for wireless telephone services that contained both an agreement to arbitrate disputes and a class action waiver clause. While this matter deals with the viability of an arbitration provision in a consumer contract, the Supreme Court’s decision may impact such provisions in employment agreements as well..jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued two decisions that impact employers. One decision will make employers more vulnerable to charges of disparate impact discrimination claims; the other makes it easier for fee claimants in ERISA actions to seek attorneys’ fees. In the first case, 
President Obama has named U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court. If confirmed, Kagan will be the third woman to preside over the nine-justice Court, and only the fourth woman to ever serve on the bench. A Democrat, Kagan is considered to be more moderate than Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s last nominee to the Court. Additionally, because Kagan was never a judge, she has no judicial track record to scrutinize during future confirmation hearings, and thus could be considered a “safer” pick. Also, unlike Sotomayor, Kagan does not have a history of opinions in labor and employment matters, as her academic career and writings focused primarily on matters of administrative and constitutional law. Although Kagan’s confirmation is not a sure bet by any means, the Senate’s 61-31 confirmation of her as Solicitor General last year indicates that she enjoys some measure of bipartisan support..jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not authorize arbitrators to impose class arbitration on parties to a dispute when the arbitration agreement itself is silent on the matter. In .jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide when employers can be held accountable for company officials who cause or influence the outcome of an adverse employment action, but do not themselves make that decision. The case, Staub v. Proctor Hospital (09-400), will therefore resolve conflicting opinions from several circuit courts of appeal regarding when employers may be held liable for the unlawful motives and actions of an official other than the formal decision maker, often referred to as the “cat’s paw” theory of imputed liability..jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in .jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the government violates a federal contract employee’s constitutional right to informational privacy when it (a) asks in the course of a background investigation whether the employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use that has occurred within the past year, and (b) when it asks the employee’s designated references for any adverse information that may have a bearing on the employee’s suitability for employment at a federal facility, when the information obtained in both scenarios is to be used for employment purposes only and is protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. In National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson (
In what could be hailed as a victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it less likely that a company can be sued in state court just because it conducts business in that state. Under federal statute, a corporation is to be considered a citizen of any state in which it has been incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. If sued in state court, a corporation can seek to have the case moved to federal court – a move often deemed advantageous for employers – if the parties are from different states..jpg)
In a narrowly-held decision that could have a significant impact on the 2010 mid-term elections, the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision in .png)
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to resolve whether a court or an arbitrator has jurisdiction to determine if an arbitration agreement is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably given such authority to the arbitrator. In Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson (.jpg)
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the attorney's fees provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) permits courts to award such fees to prevailing parties only. In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. (.jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued .jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Quon v. Arch Wireless, a case with potentially important implications for private employers. As .jpg)
Today, the Supreme Court released its opinion in 
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the authority to decide cases with only two sitting members. The Court has granted a petition to review the decision in 
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the deadline for filing a disparate impact employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should be 300 days after a discriminatory practice is announced or after it is implemented. In the case at issue – Lewis v. City of Chicago – the City of Chicago administered a written test to 26,000 firefighter applicants. The results of this test were divvied up by score into three levels: “well qualified,” “qualified,” and “not qualified.” Only about 11 percent of the 1,782 applicants who fell into the “well qualified” category were African American. Although applicants whose scores landed them in the “qualified” tier would be placed on the eligible list for the jobs since they passed the exam, shortly after the scores were announced the City reported that it expected to hire only about 600 of the 1,782 “well qualified” applicants, leading the remaining job hopefuls to believe they would not be hired. The actual hiring process took several months.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
As anticipated, the Senate by a vote of 68-31 has confirmed the nomination of 