When the Supreme Court begins its 2015-16 Term on October 5, 2015, it will have nine different employment cases to consider. In Heffeman v. City of Paterson, No. 14-1280, the Court will consider a police officer’s claim that his supervisors violated his First Amendment rights by demoting him because of his perceived political preferences. In MNH Gov’t Services Inc. v. Zaborowski, No. 14-1458, the Court will decide whether a California state court rule that an arbitration agreement cannot be enforced if it contains some invalid provisions is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. In another California-based case, in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, a group of California school teachers seek to overturn Supreme Court precedent that permits public employee unions to collect agency fees from public employees who are nonmembers but are in the bargaining unit represented by the union.
In class action news, in Tyson Foods, Inc., v. Bouaphakeo, the Supreme Court will consider the standards for class certification under Federal Rule 23(b)(3) for state law wage and hour claims and for certifying a FLSA collective action. Oral argument is scheduled November 10, 2015.
Title VII makes an appearance in Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613. In this case, the Court will decide if the limitations period for filing a constructive discharge claim under Title VII begins to run when the employee resigns or at the earlier date of when the employer commits the last discriminatory act creating the allegedly intolerable working conditions that precipitated the quit. Presently, five federal circuits use the date of resignation, while three use the last discriminatory act standard.
There are two ERISA cases on the docket. In Montanile v. Bd. of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, No. 14-723, the Court will consider whether ERISA Section 502(a)(3), which permits fiduciaries to pursue appropriate equitable relief against plan participants to recover overpayments or redress plan violations, permits a plan fiduciary to pursue a legal claim for damages. In Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 14-181, the Supreme Court will decide whether ERISA preempts a Vermont law that requires third-party administrators of benefit plans to report claims information to a state health care database.
While more of a consumer arbitration case, in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, No. 14-462, there are employment implications in a case where the Court will assess if federal law preempts state rules on class action waivers.
Lastly, in Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, No. 13-1496, the Supreme Court will decide whether an Indian tribal court can assess civil tort damages against the retail employer (a non-tribal employer that operates on tribal lands) for a store manager’s sexual molestation of a teen-aged tribe member.