Supreme Court Employment Law Update: Sprint, Preston, and Holowecki
Why Attend?
On February 26, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn (Case No. 06-1121). This important case concerned the admissibility of evidence of how other supervisors treated individuals other than the Plaintiff, so-called “me too” evidence. The Plaintiffs had argued that such evidence is admissible to support an inference that a discrete employment decision affecting the Plaintiff was more likely than not discriminatory, that is, infected by race, age, or gender bias. Justice Thomas authored the unanimous opinion which rejected Sprint’s argument for a ridged per se rule excluding as irrelevant and/or unduly prejudicial all such “me too” evidence. The Court held that such admissibility judgments “are generally not amenable to broad per se rules” and typically, “[r]elevance and prejudice under Rules 401 and 403 are determined in the context of the facts and arguments in a particular case.”
In Preston v. Ferrer, the Court, Justice Ginsburg writing for the majority, held that a mandatory arbitration clause in an employment agreement trumped the California state statute that conferred primary jurisdiction upon the state Labor Commission to adjudicate the essential issue at dispute, that is, whether Preston was a “talent agent” acting without a license within the meaning of the California Talent Agencies Act. The implications of Preston in other settings, for example, state adjudicative anti-discrimination agencies, will be discussed by our panel.
In Holowecki, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority, addressed the manner in which EEOC treats individuals attempting to file a charge, and held that the intake questionnaire in that case satisfied charge-filing requirements. Justice Kennedy somewhat mildly rebuked the EEOC, and suggested that it get its house in order. The panel will discuss the implications of this decision, particularly in terms of what is best practice to avoid a later challenge on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to timely fulfill the pre-conditions to suit under Title VII, or the ADA, or the ADEA.
What You Will Learn
Get the critical review of these recent U.S. Supreme Court groundbreaking decisions from a panel of national practitioners and experts during this 2 hour program. Don't risk falling behind! Join us from the comfort and convenience of your own computer or telephone for a Live Teleseminar and Audio Webcast. Get the information that's essential to your practice in a convenient, concise, and practical seminar. As an interactive seminar, the program affords the opportunity to submit questions for faculty discussion in advance of and during the event.
Planning Chairs
Robert B. Fitzpatrick, Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC, Washington, D.C.
Frank C. Morris, Jr., Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., Washington, D.C.
Faculty
Eric Dreiband, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC
Eric Schnapper, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA
Michael L. Foreman, Deputy Director of Legal Programs, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC
Total 60-minute hours of instruction: 2.0; Total 50-minute hours: 2.4
Suggested Prerequisite: Limited experience in legal practice in subject matter.
Educational Objective: Development of proficiency in performance of intricate and complex legal tasks within a narrow area, provision of information on recent legal developments; maintenance of professional competence as a practitioner.
Level of Instruction: Intermediate
Times
Eastern 12 noon - 2 pm
Central 11 am – 1 pm
Mountain 10 am – 12 noon
Pacific & Arizona 9 am – 11 am
Alaska 8 am – 10 am
Hawaii 6 am – 8 am
