Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Union Misconduct During A Strike May Result In State Court Liability

Peter Saucier
Peter Saucier
06/01/2023
Supreme Court Decisions, Union Activity
Decades ago, the Supreme Court interpreted the National Labor Relations Act to afford unions and strikers special immunity from state court liability for damages resulting from a strike. Named after a 1959 Supreme Court decision, that so-called Garmon exemption doctrine, in the words of the Supreme Court, “tells us not just what law applies (federal law, not state law) but who applies it (the National Labor Relations Board, not the state courts or...
read more

Frozen Concrete – How Much Does Labor Law Protect “Sabotage”?

Peter Saucier
Peter Saucier
01/24/2023
Supreme Court Decisions, Union Activity
Industrial concrete, once prepared, must be poured and set promptly. Glacier Concrete, a mid-sized company in Washington state, sends mixer trucks filled with concrete to jobsites every day.  In 2017, some 13 mixer trucks filled with concrete were on the road when the Teamsters Union called a strike among the drivers of Glacier Concrete. Many of the mixer truck drivers returned their trucks to the company yard, filled with wet concrete, and walked...
read more

Fourth Circuit Decision Protecting Transgender Student Rights Stands After Supreme Court Denies Review

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/07/2021
Sex Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions, Virginia Employment Law
On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the Gloucester County, Virginia School Board’s petition to review Gloucester Co. Sch'l Bd. v. Grimm, No. 20-1163.  The denial leaves a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ s ruling intact, making it unlawful in this jurisdiction (South Carolina, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia) to prohibit students from using  bathroom facilities that align with their gender identity....
read more

Supreme Court Rules That Gay and Transgender Employees Are Protected Under Title VII

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/16/2020
Employment Discrimination, Same-Sex Marriage, Sex Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions
In a landmark 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Title VII protections extend to gay and transgender employees. The Bostock case was a consolidation of three cases wherein an employee was terminated for being homosexual or transgender. Gerald Bostock was fired shortly after joining a gay recreational softball league. Donald Zarda was terminated shortly after he announced being gay. Aimee Stephens was fired after informing her...
read more

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In LGBTQ-Title VII Cases

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
10/11/2019
Supreme Court Decisions
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three soon-to-be landmark cases concerning LGBTQ rights under Title VII: Bostock v. Clayton County (No. 17-1618); Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda (No. 17-1623); and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC (18-107).  Bostock and Zarda concern whether sexual orientation is protected under Title VII, while R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes questions whether Title VII...
read more

Gender Identity Bias and Employer Dress Codes

Frank Kollman
Frank Kollman
10/02/2019
Employment Discrimination, Gender Identity, Supreme Court Decisions
On October 8, the Supreme Court will hear arguments whether gender identity is a protected classification under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, in addition to sex, race, color, religion, and national origin.  R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., No. 18-107.  Whatever the Court decides, its opinion could have a profound impact on dress codes in the workplace.  The case before the Court...
read more

Supreme Court Holds That Title VII’s Charge-Filing Requirement Is Not Jurisdictional

Garrett Wozniak
Garrett Wozniak
06/03/2019
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court held today in a unanimous opinion that the charge-filing requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not jurisdictional.  Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525 (June 3, 2019). Title VII prohibits employment dis­crimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as well as retaliation against those who engage in protected activity.  42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1); § 2000e–3(a)....
read more

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari On LGBT Discrimination Issues

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
04/24/2019
Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court Decisions
On April 22, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorariin three cases relating to Title VII’s coverage (or noncoverage) of workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or transgender status.  Those cases are Bostock v. Clayton County, GA(No. 17-1618), Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda(No. 17-1623), and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (No. 18-107). The Court consolidated Bostockand Zarda, which both concern whether...
read more

Supreme Court to Decide if EEOC Charge Filing is Jurisdictional or Administrative

Darrell VanDeusen
Darrell VanDeusen
01/16/2019
Employment Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court has granted a writ certiorari to address the question of whether Title VII’s requirement of the need to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before going to court is a jurisdictional or administrative exhaustion requirement.  The case comes from the Fifth Circuit and has been bouncing around the lower courts for many years.  Davis v. Fort Bend Cty., 893 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2018), cert....
read more

Supreme Court Rules That Public Sector Agency Fees Are Unconstitutional

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/27/2018
Labor Law, Public Sector Employment Law, Supreme Court Decisions
On the last opinion day of the 2017-2018 term, the Supreme Court issued a long-expected decision prohibiting public sector collective bargaining agreements from requiring employees who are not members of the union to pay agency fees. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito, the Court overturned 41 year old precedent and ruled that requiring non-members to pay a fee to the union representing them violates the free speech rights of employees who...
read more
Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.