We all know the traditional protocols. When an appellate court issues a decision that would overrule a bunch of district court decisions, you appeal your adverse district court ruling to the appellate court.
But when it comes to the endless cycle of litigation prompted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recess appointments, the rules suddenly change.
The Supreme Court resolved a narrow, but long-standing circuit conflict this week in Kloeckner v. Solis, a jurisdictional dispute about the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
Monday, the Court ruled that a federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the MSPB violates an anti-discrimination statute should seek judicial review in district court — not the Federal Circuit — regardless of whether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or on the merits.
We all know that federal judges don't walk around handing out advisory opinions. To bring a matter before a federal court, you need a case or controversy.
But if a defendant makes the putative representative in a collective action an offer in full satisfaction of her claims, is the matter moot as to those who are similarly situated?
Monday, the Supreme Court will consider this question in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk.
On Monday, the Nine will return to Washington to consider the future of employment lawsuits in Vance v. Ball State University. More specifically, who qualifies as a supervisor?
In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, the Supreme Court held that an employer is vicariously liable under Title VII for severe or pervasive workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim's co-employee, however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence.
We have less than a week until the Nine head to the bench, and the world starts to make sense again. We’re celebrating the return of relative normalcy by continuing our preview of the 2012 term.
The Supreme Court’s second day of oral arguments next week will be a federal government fun fest. The Court will consider two cases in which lawyers will argue that the federal government is out to get everyone: Kloeckner v. Solis and U.S v. Bormes.
Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits from fired civil servants who want to challenge the constitutionality of their firing.
The Supreme Court announced Monday in a 6-3 opinion that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precludes district court jurisdiction over civil servants' claims that they were fired for failing to sign up for the draft. The court reasoned that it is fairly discernible that Congress intended the CSRA's review scheme to provide the exclusive avenue to judicial review for covered employees challenging adverse employment actions, reports The Associated Press.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday that a private attorney temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from a civil rights lawsuit.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the unanimous court, overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case.
The Supreme Court will kick off its April sitting on April 16, considering a circuit split in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
The case addresses whether a pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR) is an “outside salesperson,” and thus exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that PSRs are exempt from overtime pay. In its In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litigation decision, the Second Circuit ruled that PSRs should get overtime wages.
The 1991 Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill sexual harassment claims produced sensational headlines and introduced sexual harassment into the national dialogue. The subject has now returned to the spotlight as October marks the 20th anniversary of the hearings.
While Americans became more conscious of sexual harassment claims in the wake of Justice Thomas's confirmation hearings, the first Supreme Court sexual harassment opinion, Meritor v. Vinson, was issued in 1986. In that case, the court found that sexual harassment was sex discrimination.
We're curious: Did Hill's sexual harassment claims against Justice Thomas affect his outlook in Supreme Court sexual harassment cases? Let's take a look at five of the sexual harassment claims to come before The Nine since 1991.
Will New Haven firefighters have another day in the Supreme Court?
This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals revived New Haven firefighter Michael Briscoe's claim challenging the same exam that the Supreme Court mulled in Ricci v. DeStefano. A district court had previously ruled that Briscoe's claim was barred by the Ricci holding.
The Nine ruled in 2009 that white New Haven firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race after the city invalidated the results of a promotions exam that none of New Haven's African-American firefighters passed.
