Articles Posted in Supreme Court

Owen H. Laird, Esq.

We recently wrote about two labor and employment law cases that will be heard by the United States Supreme Court in its current session: Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Encino Motorcars, LLC, v. Hector Navarro, et al. These cases, however, were not the only labor and employment law cases submitted to the Court for certiorari. The Supreme Court only takes a small fraction of the cases that are submitted to it each year, and, this year, the Court elected not to weigh in on several significant employment law cases. Because the Court decided not to hear the appeals, the decisions of the circuit courts in those cases will stand.  Two cases in particular, Stevens v. Rite-Aid Corp. and Bartels v. 402 East Broughton Street Inc., could have a significant impact on employees.

In Stevens v. Rite-Aid Corp., the Second Circuit addressed the question of what constitutes an essential job function for the purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination in employment against a “qualified individual” on the basis of their disability. A “qualified individual” is defined as someone who, with or without reasonable accommodations, can perform the “essential functions” of their job. In short, employers may not discriminate against employees with disabilities that do not prevent job performance, but when an employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job, even with an accommodation, the employer can terminate the employee.

Owen H. Laird, Esq.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear two cases that will have major ramifications for workers across the country. One case threatens one of organized labor’s most important rights, and the other impacts employees of car dealerships nationwide.

The Court agreed to hear arguments on Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which concerns a union’s right to take dues from non-members who are in the same bargaining unit as members the union represents. This issue of union dues has been long, and corporate interests have been successful in gradually rolling back organized labor’s ability to raise funds.

Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

Arbitration between employees and employers favors employers’ interests at employees’ expense. Ostensibly, arbitration merely requires that any employment claims be litigated in a private forum; in reality, it discourages employees from suing their employers because, as compared to litigation, employees are less likely to win and generally recover lower damages. As such, many employers require their employees to sign arbitration agreements.

Indeed, a report from the Economic Policy Institute has found that, since the early 2000s, the number of workers subject to mandatory arbitration has more than doubled, covering 60 million U.S. private-sector non-union workers. These agreements prevent 55 percent of U.S. workers from accessing the courts to protect their employment rights.  This figure increases to 65.1 percent among large companies—those with 1,000 or more employees.  Of the employers who require mandatory arbitration, 30.1 percent also include class action waivers in their procedures—meaning that about 25 million employees also lose the right to address widespread employment rights violations through class action.  For large companies, the number of employees subject to class action waivers increases to 41.1 percent. In total, 23.1 percent of private-sector non-union employees no longer have the right to bring or participate in a class action against their employers.

Owen H. Laird

The Harman Firm blog has run several stories over the past year about the evolving case law concerning sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Last week, a plaintiff in a sexual orientation discrimination case in the Eleventh Circuit, Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, requested that the United States Supreme Court take up the issue.

To recap: Title VII is one of the foundational federal anti-discrimination statutes; it protects employees against discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.  Sexual orientation is not one of the protected statuses enumerated in Title VII.  In 2016, however, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) – the federal agency tasked with administering Title VII – filed two lawsuits asserting sexual orientation discrimination claims under Title VII.  This was a major change, as both the EEOC and nearly every federal court had previously taken the position that sexual orientation discrimination was not prohibited under Title VII.

Lev Craig

Last week, on June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiff Richard Villarreal’s petition for a writ of certiorari, declining to review the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In Villarreal, the court was asked to consider whether the ADEA permits job applicants who have been disadvantaged in the hiring process because of their age to bring disparate impact claims. The Eleventh Circuit ruled against Villarreal, holding that the ADEA only creates a disparate impact cause of action for existing employees, not job applicants. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari means that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision will stand and, for now, the issue will remain open to interpretation by lower courts and the other Circuits.

In 2007, Richard Villarreal applied for a position as a territory manager at R.J. Reynolds, a large tobacco manufacturer and distributor. R.J. Reynolds rejected Villarreal, who was 49 years old at the time, based on a set of standardized internal guidelines. These guidelines stated that the ideal candidate for the territory manager position would be “2–3 years out of college” and instructed reviewers to “stay away from” applicants whose résumés stated that they had been “in sales for 8–10 years.”

Owen H. Laird, Esq.

Today, the United States Senate will hold its second day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Neil M. Gorsuch. Judge Gorsuch currently serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Although his confirmation hearings have been contentious, President Trump’s nominee is likely to be confirmed, as Republicans control enough votes in the Senate to do so. As the Supreme Court is presently split 4-4 between liberal and conservative Justices, Judge Gorsuch would likely represent the swing vote on the Court.

Judge Gorsuch has a long history of judicial decisions and legal writing to parse for clues as to what type of a Supreme Court Justice he might be. Putting aside some of the judicial issues that have received more attention recently—such as abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, use of force by the police—the incoming Supreme Court Justice will have a significant impact on the state of employment law in the U.S. in light of the Court’s current mixed political makeup.

Owen H. Laird, Esq.

This should not come as a surprise: tomorrow is Election Day.   Coverage of the presidential race started over a year ago and has been inescapable for the last several months.  Putting aside the vitriol, nonsense, and mudslinging, the outcome of this election will have a significant impact on the employment of millions of Americans, and not just in terms of the candidates’ claims about job creation.  Should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, Americans will likely see a continuation of the worker-friendly policies instituted under President Obama.  However, should Donald Trump win, we will likely see a Republican administration roll back much of the progress of the past eight years, to the detriment of workers and the benefit of employers.

The Obama administration has influenced employment law policy through three main avenues: (1) executive order, (2) administrative agencies, and (3) appointment.

Yarelyn Mena and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

Courts in the United States generally recognize that marijuana use is a legitimate reason to terminate an employee. However, with an increasing number of states now legitimizing both recreational and medical marijuana use, employers and employees alike are left with uncertainty as to the potential repercussions of marijuana use with respect to employment.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana. In addition, in some states, including Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada and New York, an employer cannot take an adverse action against an employee simply because of his or her participation in a recognized medical marijuana program. Medical marijuana use also implicates federal and state disability laws. Additionally, a medical marijuana user may be considered disabled if he or she has a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or similar state statutes. While the ADA itself does not require an accommodation based on marijuana use, it does require other accommodations related to a covered disability. As such, if an employee tests positive for marijuana, the employer should ask the worker to verify that he or she is a participant in a recognized medical marijuana program.

Yarelyn Mena  and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

On March 23, 2016, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed in to law the Public Facilities Privacy of Security Act (or H.B. 2), which bans transgender people from using the public bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity, overturns Charlotte, North Carolina’s anti-LGBT discrimination law, prevents other localities from passing anti-discrimination laws, and prevents cities from raising their minimum wages higher than that of the state. H.B. 2 was passed days before Transgender Day of Visibility, a day that recognizes the accomplishments of the transgender community. Although there were many recent victories for the LGBT community, H.B. 2 is an important reminder that there is still a lot of work to be done before LGBT individuals have the same rights everyone enjoys.

On February 22, 2016, the city of Charlotte, North Carolina passed a law prohibiting discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the workplace. The most controversial part of the law was that it would allow transgendered people to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. Opponents of the bill nicknamed it the “bathroom bill” and argue that it made bathrooms unsafe for women and children. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Payton McGarry, a transgender student, is one of the Plaintiff’s in a lawsuit challenging H.B. 2, who has been assaulted and ridiculed for using the bathroom that comports with his gender identity at his university, experiences which will only grow worse with H.B. 2 in place. H.B. 2 abrogated that law.

Yarelyn Mena and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

On February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away after 30 years of service on the bench. Justice Scalia was widely renowned for his conservative political views and eloquent legal opinions. His passing left a vacanct seat at the Supreme Court, without Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court; is evenly split between four liberals and four conservatives. The Constitution tasks the President to fill that vacancy by appointing a candidate “by and with the advice and consent” of the Senate.

The media has been whirling as it awaits President Obama’s nomination in light of the President’s ongoing battle with the Republican-filled Senate’particularly because any Republicans in  the Senate have vowed to block any of President Obama’s nominations. In fact, many Republicans in the Senate wish to prevent President Obama from nominating any Justice in hopes that when his term is over at the end of 2016, a new Republican President will nominate a conservative justice.