U.S. Supreme Court Cases To Watch

A new term of the U.S. Supreme Court has begun. There are several labor and employment cases pending before the Court to keep an eye on, including: 

Stanley v. City of Sanford. This case relates to a conflict between the federal circuit courts over whether the Americans with Disabilities Act permits a disabled former employee to sue over post-employment benefits. The plaintiff took early retirement due to Parkinson’s disease. She alleges that a change to city policy which resulted in her receiving only two years of free health insurance after retirement discriminated against disabled workers. The issue for the Court to decide is whether the ADA allows a former employee to sue over post-employment benefits. 

Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services. This is a reverse discrimination case where an employee claims she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. Her case was ultimately dismissed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which applied a standard of proof requiring members of a non-minority group to make an extra showing of bias. The employee contends that Title VII requires no such extra showing and that all individuals should have the same burden of proof under this law. The Court will decide whether a majority-group plaintiff must make an additional showing of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera. Here, the issue is the burden of proof an employer must satisfy to show that an employee is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime requirements. Many courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court, use a preponderance of the evidence standard, but one jurisdiction, the Fourth Circuit, uses the more challenging clear and convincing evidentiary standard. 

Lackey v. Stinnie. This case addresses when a party can recover attorney’s fees as a prevailing party. The plaintiffs in this case argue that they were entitled to attorney’s fees after they prevailed in obtaining a preliminary injunction against the State of Virginia in a civil rights matter under Section 1988. Although this is not an employment case, the Court’s ruling may impact employment litigation matters under other civil rights laws that award attorney’s fees to prevailing parties. 

Williams v. Washington. Here the issue is whether state laws requiring plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit can prevent a plaintiff from filing a civil rights claim under Section 1983 in federal court. The plaintiffs in this case sued the Alabama Secretary of Labor due to delays in processing their unemployment compensation claims during the pandemic. They contend that their due process rights and Social Security Act rights were violated and sued under Section 1983, a federal civil rights statute. At issue is whether the administrative exhaustion requirement of the state’s unemployment laws apply to a Section 1983 lawsuit. 

We will monitor these cases, and any additional cases the Court will hear, and keep you posted on developments. As always, if you have questions about these topics, please contact a KZA attorney. 

KZA Employer Report articles are for general information only; they are not intended and should not be construed to be legal advice. Reading or replying to such articles does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In addition, because the subject matters and applicable laws discussed in Employer Report articles are often in a state of change and not always applicable to every type of business entity or organization, readers should consult with counsel before making decisions based on the same.