U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review: Social Equity Issues

1. U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review:Social Equity Issues 2008-2009 Term

2. U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review:Social Equity Issues A Supreme Court Primer

3. A Supreme Court Year The United States Supreme Court holds a continuous annual Term commencing on the first Monday in October and ending on the day before the first Monday in October of the following year. 28 U. S. C. § 2.

4. How Does a Case Get to the US Supreme Court?

5. US Court of Appeals

6. Not Every Appeal is Heard The US Supreme Court selects which appeals it will hear after a party files a request before the Court. The request is known as a Writ of Certiorari

7. U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review:Social Equity Issues Case Review

8. Important Social Equity Cases for the 2008-2009 Term AT&T v. Hulteen – Pregnancy Discrimination Act Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson City – Title VII Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee - Title IX Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. - ADEA Ricci v. DeStefano – Title VII

9. AT&T v. Hulteen: Facts Nora Hulteen and 3 other employees received reduced retirement benefits because of pregnancy leave taken in the 1960s and early 1970s. AT&T changed its calculated service credit for pregnancy leave in 1979 following the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

10. AT&T v. Hulteen: Facts However, AT&T continued to award benefits on a discriminatory basis to those who had taken leave previously (i.e. no recalculation of benefits taken pre-Act). As a result, Hulteen and others received smaller pensions than workers who took short term disability leave during the same period of time.

11. AT&T v. Hulteen: Issues Whether AT&T violated Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act?

12. AT&T v. Hulteen: Decision The Court ruled 7 – 2 in favor of AT&T. Majority: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Souter, Justice Stevens, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Minority: Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion.

13. AT&T v. Hulteen: Opinion Congress determined within the Act that there be no retroactive application to a bona fide seniority system with benefit differentials unless there was an intent to discriminate. Prior to the Act being passed, differing treatment due to pregnancy was not considered discrimination therefore, there could be no intent.

14. AT&T v. Hulteen: Opinion Concluding otherwise would re-characterize something as illegal when it was legal when done. Unlike Ledbetter, each time a retirement check was issued, it was not to be considered a new discriminatory action because there was no intent to discriminate at the time of accrual nor was it illegal to do so.

15. Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t: Facts Crawford was interviewed by HR as a possible witness in a sexual harassment complaint. Crawford corroborated reports that a male supervisor subjected female workers to sexually suggestive comments, gestures and other comments.

16. Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t: Facts No adverse action taken against male supervisor. Shortly after the investigation, Crawford and two other cooperating witnesses were fired for reasons later proven to be false.

17. Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t: Issue Does Title VII protect a worker from dismissal for cooperating in an employer’s internal sexual harassment investigation?

18. Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t: Decision The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Crawford. Justice Souter wrote the opinion of the Court.

19. Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t: Opinion Crawford’s response to her employer’s investigation qualified as opposition to discriminatory practices and entitled her to protection from retaliation.

20. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: Facts A kindergarten girl was subjected to repeated sexual harassment from a 3rd grade boy on a school bus. Girl’s parents contacted the principal who began an investigation and sought to resolve the issue.

21. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: Facts Principal refused parent’s request to have an adult ride the bus to monitor or that the boy be transferred to another bus. Parents sued under Title IX and §1983 of the Civil Rights Act which provides a civil remedy when state or local government officials violate the U.S. Constitution.

22. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: Issue Does Title IX preclude Plaintiffs from also filing a §1983 constitutional claim to remedy sex discrimination in an educational setting?

23. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: Decision The Court ruled 9 – 0 in favor of Fitzgerald. Justice Alito wrote the opinion of the Court.

24. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: Opinion Title IX works toward equality promised in the 14th Amendment but may only be brought against educational institutions if they receive federal funds. §1983 may be brought against individual officials.

25. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: Opinion Therefore, individuals who hold positions of responsibility, in addition to institutions, are accountable to adequately respond to complaints of sexual harassment.

26. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: Facts During a company reorganization, Gross was reassigned from a VP to a Director position. He considered this a demotion because of the impact on his points that determine salary grade.

27. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: Facts Subsequently, his position was eliminated and he was reassigned again but maintained points and pay grade of a manager. Gross sued his employer alleging intentional age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

28. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: Issue Whether Gross must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case?

29. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: Decision The Court ruled 5 – 4 in favor of FBL Financial. Majority: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito. Minority: Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority.

30. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: Opinion The Court’s decision ultimately made it more challenging for employees to win age discrimination lawsuits. Plaintiffs must prove that age was the sole reason for an employer’s action.

31. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: Opinion Previously, employers had to prove that age was not a motivating factor in the decision. This decision shifts the full burden of proof in age discrimination lawsuits to employees.

32. Ricci v. DeStefano: Facts A promotion test administered to firefighters resulted in white candidates outperforming minority candidates. A public outcry commenced that the test was inherently unfair.

33. Ricci v. DeStefano: Facts Confronted with for and against certifying the test results, the City threw out the results based on the statistical racial disparity (i.e. assumed disparate impact). One Latino and 17 White firefighters who passed the exams but were denied promotions sued alleging that discarding the test results was racially discriminatory thus violating their rights under Title VII.

34. Ricci v. DeStefano: Issue Did the City’s action in discarding the tests violate Title VII?

35. Ricci v. DeStefano: Decision The Court ruled 5 – 4 in favor of the firefighters. Majority: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito Minority: Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens, Justice Souter and Justice Breyer. Justice Kennedy authored the opinion of the majority.

36. Ricci v. DeStefano: Opinion An employer may take action to avoid racially disparate impact only if there is a "strong basis in evidence" that the employer would be subject to liability. An employer would have to have a "strong basis in evidence" that its action was (1) not job related and consistent with business necessity or (2) that there exists an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative.

37. Ricci v. DeStefano: Opinion The Court determined that the City had no substantial basis in evidence and that the City made its employment decision because of race. The City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.

38. U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review:Social Equity Issues What’s Next ?

39. The Biggest Variable for the Upcoming Term….

40. U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review:Social Equity Issues Questions?