Beware of Dog(ma): Did the Supreme Court just Require Employers to Accommodate Whenever a Request *Might* be due to Religion?

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited decision in the "Looks Policy" case. It's not terribly unexpected, but it is a little scary considering the potential far-reaching effects going forward.  More ›

Supreme Court Vacates fourth Circuit in UPS Pregnancy Discrimination case, but Rejects EEOC's "Most Favored Employee" Argument

Since the case was argued on December 3, 2014, practitioners and clients alike have been anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.That wait is over as the Supreme Court issued a divided opinion yesterday. The majority opinion vacated the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had affirmed summary judgment in UPS's favor in a suit that arose out of the company's decision to deny leave to a pregnant driver in accordance with the terms of its leave provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement.   More ›

Abercrombie & Fitch Doesn't look too good to Supreme Court

In a case we discussed earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court did not appear impressed with Abercrombie & Fitch's recent argument that a hijab wearing applicant needed to ask for religious accommodation before they were obliged to grant it to her. News sources have reported that oral argument this past Wednesday seemed to favor Samantha Elauf's right to an accommodation even though the teenage, Muslim job applicant in Tulsa did not explicitly tell Abercrombie & Fitch that she was wearing the black head scarf for religious reasons.   More ›

Supreme Court: Ordinary Contract Principles do not Allow Inference of Vesting Rights Absent Clear and Express Language

In 2000, M&G Polymers purchased the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant in Apple Grove, WV. At that time, M&G entered into a collective-bargaining agreement and a related Pension, Insurance, and Service Award Agreement (P & I Agreement) with the union. The P & I Agreement provided for medical coverage with a full employer contribution to be provided for the duration of the agreement, subject to future negotiations. When those agreements expired, M&G announced that it would require retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care benefits. Several retirees sued M&G in federal district court, alleging that the P & I Agreement created a vested right to a lifetime contribution of free healthcare benefits. More ›

Supreme Court Backs Whistleblowing Air Marshall

On January 21st, the Supreme Court affirmed a former air marshal's right to whistleblower protection relating to his leaking of air security plans to the media. The 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in the case, Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, No. 13-894 (U.S. January 21, 2015), represents a rare victory for government whistleblowers who expose dangers to public health or safety. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Employees' Security Screening Compensation Claims

In a decision impacting businesses across the country, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that time spent by warehouse employees waiting to leave work through a security screening checkpoint is not compensable. The employees were working at a retail warehouse for a temporary staffing services company, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., and filed a class action lawsuit alleging that they should be compensated for the time they were required to go through an anti-theft security checkpoint after their shift ended. The employees alleged that the waiting "postliminary" activity time was up to twenty five minutes and involved removing belts, keys and phones as well as passing through a metal detector. More ›

Delivery Change: UPS Announces Modification of Challenged Pregnancy Accommodation Policy Just Weeks Ahead of Supreme Court Arguments

In July of this year, we wrote about new EEOC guidance on the accommodation of pregnant employees under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). One of the primary issues addressed in the EEOC's guidance was the accommodation of pregnant employees under the PDA on the same basis as disabled employees; in other words, whether a non-disabled pregnant employee can claim gender discrimination if he or she is not provided the same accommodations as a disabled employee. The EEOC stated that she can, equating any policy that denies such accommodation to intentional gender discrimination. (As we wrote at the time, one dissenting Commission member referred to this controversial new position as “me too” coverage — “whatever a person with a disability under the ADA is entitled to, I’m entitled too, to.”)  

As we also noted in July, however, this very same issue will come before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, and a last-minute development now gives employers more reason to pay attention. More ›

After NLRB v. Canning: A Practical Guide for Employers

The Supreme Court's decision last week in NLRB v. Canning left many employers scratching their heads—and with good reason.

Sure, the unanimous ruling served as a rebuke to the Obama Administration, and hundreds of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings expanding employee rights and protections have been wiped off the books.  But what exactly is the current state of the law?  And how should you, as an employer, proceed in terms of creating and implementing employment-related policies? More ›

Supreme Court Strikes NLRB Recess Appointments

The United States Supreme Court has struck down President Obama's controversial 2012 nominations to the NLRB, holding that the President violated the Constitution by using his recess appointments power when the Senate was still in session.

The ruling in NLRB v. Noel Canning calls into question hundreds of mostly pro-union NLRB decisions rendered by the improperly constituted board. It also will limit the ability of future presidents unilaterally to fill agency vacancies with highly partisan appointees. More ›

Compliance: Employers closely watching Supreme Court’s ruling in Canning

The Court’s ruling will likely define the scope of the president’s recess appointments power for future administrations.

It’s easy to identify recess in an elementary school day: The bell rings, the kids tumble out of class, and the yard fills with playful shrieks and laughter.

Not so with Congress. The U.S. Senate’s chambers may be dark, official business on hold, the senators all home on vacation, and yet the legislative body may still be in session. More ›