Employment Cases on the Supreme Court's 2012-13 Docket

U.S. Supreme Court Building

The U.S. Supreme Court's new term got under way on October 1, the first Monday in October. Here are the employment cases for which the Court has so far granted review. We will update this posting with developments in these cases and any other employment cases for which review is granted.

 Kloeckner v. Solis, No. 11-184. The question is whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a federal district court has jurisdiction over a discrimination claim if the Merit Systems Protection Board hears an appeal by a federal employee from an adverse action, without determining the employee's discrimination claim. On December 10, 2012, the Court unanimously ruled that the district courts have jurisdiction over such appeals. The Eighth Circuit decision that the Court reversed is available here. The case was argued on October 2, 2012. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here. [UPDATED 12/16/2012]

Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556. The question is whether an employer is strictly liable under Title VII for harassment by all those whom it vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work, or only those who have the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" their victim. The Seventh Circuit decision under review is available here. The case was argued on November 26, 2012. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, No. 11-1285. The case concerns the limits on the equitable relief that a court may award under ERISA to enforce the terms of an employee benefit plan. The Third Circuit decision under review is available here. The case was argued on November 27, 2012. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

[ADDED 12/16/2012] Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135. The question is whether an arbitrator acts within his powers under the Federal Arbitration Act (as the Second and Third Circuits have held) or exceeds those powers (as the Fifth Circuit has held) by determining that parties affirmatively "agreed to authorize class arbitration," Stolt-Nielsen, 130 S. Ct. at 1776, based solely on their use of broad contractual language precluding litigation and requiring arbitration of any dispute arising under their contract. The Third Circuit decision under review is available here.

Employment Cases on the Supreme Court's Calendar

U.S. Supreme Court Building

The U.S. Supreme Court's new term got under way on October 3, the first Monday in October. Here are the employment cases for which the Court has so far granted review. We will update this posting with developments in these cases and any other employment cases for which review is granted.

Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 10-1016. On March 20, 2012, the Court ruled that Congress did not abrogated the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it included a right to time off for an employee's own serious health condition in the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the Eleventh Amendment barred an FMLA claim against the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case was argued on January 11, 2012. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, No. 10-553. On January 12, 2012, the Court ruled that the First Amendment requires a "ministerial" exception to employment discrimination laws, and that the exception barred the claims in the case before it. The Sixth Circuit had ruled that the exception did not bar the teacher's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case was argued on October 5, 2011. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, No. 10-1121. This case clarifies a union's obligations to nonunion public employees who are compelled to pay fair share fees for union representation under Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986). On June 21, 2012, the Court ruled that any dues increase that funds political activities must be preceded by notice and an opportunity to object. The Ninth Circuit decision under review is available here. The case was argued on January 10, 2012. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, No. 10-507. The case concerns compensation for workers injured as a result of operations conducted on the outer continental shelf. On January 12, 2012, the Court affirmed the decision under review, adopting the "substantial nexus" text for determining whether the operative statute applies. The Ninth Circuit decision under review is available here. The case was argued on October 11, 2011. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., No. 10-1399. On March 20, 2012 the Court ruled that an employee is “newly awarded compensation” when he first becomes disabled and thereby becomes statutorily entitled to benefits, no matter whether, or when, a compensation order issues on his behalf, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The Ninth Circuit decision under review is available here.The case was argued on January 11, 2012. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

UPDATE [10/19/2011]

Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, No. 11-45. On June 11, 2012, the Court ruled that the Civil Service Reform Act establishes the exclusive means for obtaining judicial review for covered employees who challenge covered adverse employment actions. The First Circuit decision under review is reported at 641 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2011). The case was argued on February 27, 2012. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

UPDATE [11/17/2011]

NFIB v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400. On June 28, 2012, the Court upheld the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a tax measure, but struck down the requirement that States join the expansion of Medicaid under threat of losing all Medicaid funding. The Eleventh Circuit decision under review is reported at 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011). For information about the law's anticipated effect on employers, see this analysis from the Rand Corporation and this one from The New England Journal of Medicine. The case was argued over three days: March 26, 27 and 28. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site. Transcripts of each day's oral arguments are available here.

UPDATE [2/21/2012]

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham, No. 11-204. On June 18, 2012, the Court ruled that the FLSA's outside salesperson's exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives, who do not sell directly to consumers. The Ninth Circuit decision under review (which applied the exemption to the representatives) is reported at 635 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2011). The case was argued on April 16, 2012. The briefs filed in the case are available at the ABA's Supreme Court Preview site.

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Privacy Interest in Electronic Messages

On Monday, April 19, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a case that involves public employee privacy interests in electronic messages delivered to pagers. The City of Ontario had audited text messages sent to pagers issued to its police officers to determine if the pagers were being misused for personal purposes. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the City had violated the officers right of privacy. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider these questions:

1. Whether a SWAT team member has a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on his SWAT pager, where the police department has an official no-privacy policy but a non-policymaking lieutenant announced an informal policy of allowing some personal use of the pagers.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit contravened this Court's Fourth Amendment precedents and created a circuit conflict by analyzing whether the police department could have used "less intrusive methods" of reviewing text messages transmitted by a SWAT team member on his SWAT pager.

3. Whether individuals who send text messages to a SWAT team member's SWAT pager have a reasonable expectation that their messages will be free from review by the recipient's government employer.

The transcript of the oral argument is available here. The Court should hand down its decision by the end of June.

A report about the Ninth Circuit's decision appeared in an earlier post on this blog.

City of Ontario v. Quon, Dkt. No. 08-1332.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court eventually ruled that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the search of the text messages was motivated by legitimate work-related purpose, and was not excessive in scope. City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332 (Jun. 17, 2010).