US Supreme Court in Review

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

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

   A Supreme Court Primer
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.
How Does a Case Get to the US
Supreme Court?
US Court of Appeals
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
U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review:
       Social Equity Issues

          Case Review
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t: Issue



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

The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of
Crawford.



Justice Souter wrote the opinion of
the Court.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School
Committee: Decision


The Court ruled 9 – 0 in favor of
Fitzgerald.



Justice Alito wrote the opinion of the
Court.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ricci v. DeStefano: Issue


Did the City’s action in
discarding the tests violate
Title VII?
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.
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.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review:
       Social Equity Issues

         What’s Next ?
The Biggest Variable for the Upcoming
Term….
U.S. Supreme Court Year in Review:
       Social Equity Issues


          Questions?