Category Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court To Decide Whether Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) Prohibits Retaliation Against Federal Employees

Posted on by

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 prohibits employers from refusing to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against employees who are at least 40 years of age. The goal of the ADEA is to promote the employment of older persons and to prohibit employers from engaging in arbitrary discrimination based on age.

This term, the Supreme Court will hear no less than five cases involving age discrimination. As reported by National Public Radio (NPR) in an article entitled
Age Discrimination Hits Supreme Court, the traditional notions of retirement are changing:

The percentage of people 65 and over who continue to work has grown from 10.8 percent in 1985 to 16 percent last year …. For people 55 to 64, the numbers also are up, from 54.2 percent in 1985 to 63.8 percent in 2007.

Novel issues abound. In Gomez-Perez v. Potter, for instance, Myrna Gómez-Pérez worked as a clerk for the United States Postal Service in Puerto Rico. After filing an age discrimination charge against her supervisors under the ADEA, Gómez alleged that she suffered retaliation. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the Postal Service, reasoning that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity as to retaliation claims under the ADEA.

Gómez appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit reversed, in part, holding that the United States did waive sovereign immunity, but that Section 15 of the ADEA does not provide a cause of action for retaliation by federal employers.

As reported in an article by the Washington Post entitled Public Workers’ Shield Against Reprisal for Bias Claims Pondered, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia will likely interpret this issue differently from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Houston Chronicle Editorial Urges Senate to Pass the Fair Pay Restoration Act

Posted on by

The Houston Chronicle ran an Editorial entitled, Pay Stub, which urges the Senate to pass the Fair Pay Restoration Act to ensure equal pay across genders. We wrote about the Act in a post on January 30, 2008 entitled, Two Important Congressional Bills: The Fair Pay Restoration Act & The Civil Rights Act of 2008.

The Act would essentially nullify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which sets a strict deadline for filing actions based on equal pay. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, the statute of limitations in such actions starts to run when an employee first begins to receive unequal pay, even if the employee is completely unaware of the employer’s discriminatory pay practice. As the Editorial points out, the ruling panders to the corporate interest:

[I]t’s a disaster for employees. The reality of the work environment, as almost any employee knows, is that it is difficult to know how much money any individual worker makes. In fact, companies typically discourage employees from discussing pay issues in the workplace at all. Anyone receiving discriminatory wages will be highly unlikely to find out in a timely manner.

To read more about the Ledbetter decision, please visit our January 31, 2008 post entitled, Supreme Court Routs Title VII in 2007: Goodyear Wins Right to Discriminate Based on Gender.

Two Important Congressional Bills: The Fair Pay Restoration Act & The Civil Rights Act of 2008

Posted on by

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) has proposed two new, much-necessary bills. The first, called the Fair Pay Restoration Act, would essentially undo the harsh effects created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which held that the 180 day statute of limitations deadline for filing discrimination actions starts to run when a worker first begins to receive unequal pay, instead of when the employee actually becomes aware that his or her pay is discriminatory. We wrote about the Ledbetter decision on December 31, 2008 in a post entitled, Supreme Court Routs Title VII in 2007: Goodyear Wins Right to Discriminate Based on Gender. Senator Kennedy’s bill would make clear that the statute of limitations clock starts to run after the employee becomes aware of discrimination.

Senator Kennedy’s second bill, the Civil Rights Act of 2008, would undo more bad Supreme Court precedent as well. Among other things, the bill would reverse the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, which held that individuals could not challenge federally-funded programs on the basis of discriminatory effect, but must rather meet the heavy burden of proving discriminatory intent.

The New York Times today featured an editorial on these two bills entitled, Restoring Civil Rights.

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Retaliation and Age Discrimination Cases

Posted on by

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two promising cases. In both cases, the Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiff-employee. One case involves the protection of employees from retaliation. We wrote about this case in a post on January 14, 2007 entitled, Title VII Sexual Harassment Case May Find Itself on the Supreme Court Docket. The other case involves evidentiary burdens in age discrimination suits where the employer alleges legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for a layoff.

In the first case, the employer asked an employee to cooperate in an investigation regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, who was fired after telling investigators that she had seen her co-worker engage in a series of inappropriate acts. In what has been criticized as a cramped interpretation of Title VII, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that cooperating with the investigation did not constitute “opposition” to sexual harassment. Click here for the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

The second case deals with age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. There, the employer conducted a reduction in force in which 31 employees were let go. All RIF’d employees, save for one, were 40 years old or older. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately overturned the jury verdict in favor of the employees on the basis that they failed to disprove the employer’s business necessity defense. Click here for the Second Circuit’s decision.

The New York Times reported on both cases in an article entitled, Justices Add More Cases on Job Discrimination.

Title VII Sexual Harassment Case May Find Itself on the Supreme Court Docket

Posted on by

The Supreme Court’s docket in 2008 may include a case out of Nashville, TN involving sexual harassment. An article out of the Tennessean gives a synopsis of the facts:

The case began in 2002, when Vicky Crawford, then a payroll supervisor who had worked for the school system for 30 years, was contacted by school officials looking into allegations of sexual misconduct against Gene Hughes, then the schools’ employee relations director.Crawford told investigators that she had seen Hughes grab his crotch in her presence, that he had asked to see her breasts, and on one occasion, he grabbed her head and tried to force it into his groin. At the time, Hughes was responsible for investigating all claims of sexual harassment in the school district. The lawsuit alleges that the internal investigation ended with no disciplinary action against Hughes. But Crawford, and two other female employees who cooperated with the probe, were fired, the suit says.

Title VII prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions against employees who oppose unlawful employment practices such as sexual harassment. At issue in Crawford’s retaliation claim under Title VII is the definition of oppose.

Crawford argued that she opposed Hughes’ inappropriate conduct by cooperating with the school’s internal investigation. In response, the school argued that Title VII’s whistleblower provision was not intended to protect employees participating in an internal investigation initiated by an employer. Disregarding Title VII’s broad remedial purpose, the district court and the Sixth Court agreed with the school’s argument and dismissed Crawford’s retaliation claim. Click here for the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, the issue will focus on whether an employee who is terminated after cooperating with an internal investigation in which she alleges unlawful employment practices states a claim for retaliation under Title VII.