by Hera S. Arsen, J.D.
In early October, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in the 2009-2010 term. Several cases on the docket involve employment and labor-related issues.
One of the most notable of these will decide how much time plaintiffs have to file a lawsuit when they believe they have been unfairly penalized by hiring tests. Other cases will resolve issues involving an alleged whistle-blower, pension benefits, race discrimination and labor arbitration.
The key cases scheduled to be addressed by the High Court include:
On Oct. 7, the justices heard oral arguments in Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment, Central Region. This case, which is the first Railway Labor Act case the court has agreed to review in more than a decade, concerns the scope of federal court review of arbitration decisions in the railroad and airline industries.
On Dec. 9, the justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in another arbitration case (Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.). This case will decide whether arbitration of class claims is required when the parties’ arbitration agreement is silent on that matter.
While the underlying case stemmed from an antitrust conflict, the outcome of Stolt-Nielsen will probably prove to be relevant in the employment context as well. It could decide whether an employee bringing a claim covered by an arbitration agreement may pursue a class claim on behalf of similarly situated workers.
The issue in Conkright v. Frommert is whether a plan administrator’s action taken pursuant to an express grant of discretionary authority (outside the context of an initial benefits determination) is entitled to judicial deference.
The case involves a dispute over the proper remedy for Xerox Corp.’s alleged illegal calculation of pension benefits for employees who left the company and received a lump sum distribution, but were later rehired.
Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters involves two issues. The first is whether a federal court or an arbitrator has jurisdiction to determine whether a collective-bargaining agreement was formed between a union and employer following lengthy contract negotiations.
The second is whether an international union that did not sign the labor contract can be held responsible under the Labor- Relations Act for causing the local union to strike.
The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether the deadline for filing disparate impact workplace discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should be 300 days after the discriminatory practice is announced, or 300 days after the employer implements the practice.
This case, Lewis v. Chicago, involved a group of blacks who had applied for jobs as firefighters. Alleging disparate-impact race bias, the applicants challenged the city of Chicago’s hiring decisions based on a written examination. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, because the applicants did not file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the announcement of the test results, their claims were untimely.
Hera S. Arsen is the senior editor of firm publications at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/10505/supreme-courts-new-term-arbitration-disparate-impact-on-docket "