Email Updates

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

Supreme Court Upholds ERISA Contractual Statute Of Limitations Period

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
12/20/2013
Employee Benefits, Supreme Court Decisions
When litigants brings claims for benefits allegedly due them under ERISA,  a participant usually must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit to enforce his or her rights under the plan.  While this requirement is codified by federal statute, cf. 29 USC § 1132(a)(1)(B), the time a plan participant has to file a claim in court is not set by statute.  The Supreme Court recently addressed whether an ERISA plan may provide in the plan...
read more

Supreme Court to Decide ACA Contraceptive Mandate Issue

Darrell VanDeusen
Darrell VanDeusen
12/02/2013
Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court Decisions
There has been a lot of discussion on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over the past few months. Congress has been twisting about it; the Obama administration has been pilloried over it. But one branch of government was missing in the recent theatrics.  Not anymore.  On November 26, the Supreme Court threw its hat in the ring too, agreeing to consider the validity of the women’s preventive services mandate in two companion cases, Sebelius v. Hobby...
read more

The Supreme Court’s 2013-14 Labor & Employment Docket

Darrell VanDeusen
Darrell VanDeusen
10/16/2013
Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court began its term last week with eight labor and employment cases on tap. Let’s take a look:  NLRB v. Noel Canning.  This is the case of the term. The Court will review the D.C. Circuit’s decision that President Obama’s January 2012 recess appointments of three National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) members were invalid because they did not occur between Senate sessions and did not fill vacancies that arose during such an...
read more

Supreme Court To Review Constitutionality Of Recess Appointments To The NLRB

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/05/2013
Labor Law, Supreme Court Decisions
As the recent Supreme Court term came to an end, employers were greeted with a couple of favorable decisions.  On June 24th, the Court held that a “but-for” standard applies in Title VII retaliation cases and that to be a “supervisor” under Title VII, an employee must have the power to implement tangible employment actions. That same day, the Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Noel Canning Div. of Noel Corp. v....
read more

Race Based Admissions Program Sent Back To Lower Courts

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/28/2013
Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court recently made it a bit more difficult for state universities to utilize race as one of the factors in their undergraduate admission processes. In Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin, et al., No. 11-345, decided June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court effectively punted on the broader issue of whether using race as one of many factors is permissible under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.  Instead,...
read more

Supreme Court Strikes Down Portion Of Defense Of Marriage Act

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/28/2013
Legal Developments, Supreme Court Decisions
In an important and far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, 570 U.S. ____ (June 26, 2013).  Section III of DOMA defined marriage, for federal purposes, as only between a man and woman.  By striking down this provision, and recognizing the respective states’ definitions of marriage, the Supreme Court opened the door to a panoply of federal...
read more

The Supreme Court Speaks: Title VII "Supervisors" Must Have The Power To Implement Tangible Employment Actions

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/28/2013
Employer Liability, Employment Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions
In Vance v. Ball State University, in a 5-4 decision issued June 24, 2013, on the same day and by the same majority that decided the Nassar case limiting Title VII retaliation claims to “but for” violations, the U.S. Supreme Court handed employers another victory by defining, precisely and narrowly, who is a “supervisor” for liability purposes in cases of Title VII unlawful harassment. Under Title VII, employer liability for harassment...
read more

Supreme Court Holds That “But-For” Standard Applies In Title VII Retaliation Cases

Darrell VanDeusen
Darrell VanDeusen
06/25/2013
Retaliation, Supreme Court Decisions
In one of the biggest employment cases this year, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court  held that the mixed-motive theory under employment discrimination laws cannot be used in retaliation claims. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4704 (June 24, 2013).   In Nassar, the Court addressed the federal circuit split that has developed following its 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Servs. Inc., 557 U.S. 168 (2009). A little...
read more
Email Updates

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