Supreme Court Employment Law Update 2009
Why Attend?
Held annually, this 2-hour live teleseminar and audio webcast examines the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements in the employment law area. Whether you are an experienced employment law practitioner or are new to this field of law, learning about the Court's recent employment law holdings and related employment law issues is important to your practice—and your clients. The program is taught by an experienced panel that includes both academics and practicing attorneys who have argued and won high-profile Supreme Court cases. It will provide insight on how the decisions—including the Court's just-released decision in the much-discussed New Haven firefighters case (Ricci v. DeStefano) and its recent non-employment law holding in Ashcroft v. Iqbal—immediately impact both employment law advice and litigation.
What You Will Learn
Join us from the comfort and convenience of your own phone or computer to get a critical review of the following recent Supreme Court cases from a panel of leading employment law experts:
Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428 (June 29, 2009): At issue was whether municipalities may decline to certify results of a racially-neutral promotion exam that would make disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion than minority applicants, due to fears that certifying the results would lead to charges of racial discrimination. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court reversed the Second Circuit panel, which had upheld the lower court’s decision to allow the city of New Haven to throw out the results of an exam for city firefighters.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07–1015 (May 18, 2009): This 5-4 decision may have significant impact on pleadings and motions to dismiss and its confirmation that the Court meant what it said in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) generally and not just in antitrust or heightened pleading standard claims as some of the lower courts had tried to limit its effect. The emphasis will be a discussion of the requirement for "well-pleaded, factual allegations that plausibly state a claim."
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 2009 WL 838159 (April 1, 2009): This 5-4 ruling endorsed labor contracts that send age discrimination claims to arbitration rather than to federal courts. In overruling the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the collective bargaining agreement 's freely-negotiated mandatory arbitration clause was enforceable. As such, employers and unions may now have to decide if they want to "clearly and unmistakably" include individual employment claims in their CBAs, and to expressly authorize individual employees—over the objection of the union itself—to compel arbitration of claims of violations of the CBA.
AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, No. 07-543 (May 18, 2009): Here, the Court ruled that women who want their maternity leaves calculated fully into retirement benefits cannot sue for leaves taken before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy. The majority emphasized that AT&T's maternity-leave calculations were lawful before the law was passed and stressed that pension systems should allow "predictable financial consequences, both for the employer who pays the bill and for the employee who gets the benefit."
Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, 129 S.Ct. 846 (January 26, 2009): This unanimous decision held that federal law protects workers from employment retaliation after they cooperate with an employer's investigation of allegations of discrimination or harassment. The panel will discuss how this case will affect future retaliation claims and how they are handled by employers.
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 129 S.Ct. 788 (January 21, 2009): The Court unanimously reversed the First Circuit Court of Appeals in holding that a claim filed under Title IX for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not preclude the use of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to further constitutional claims. The Court reasoned that Title IX was not meant to be the exclusive tool for addressing gender discrimination in schools, or a substitute for actions filed under Section 1983 to enforce constitutional rights.
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441 (June 18, 2009): The high court in a 5-4 decision held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not allow a worker to establish discrimination by showing that age was one motivating factor for the employer's action. The majority opined that employees must show that age was the decisive factor behind the employer's adverse job action.
Invest just 2 hours at your home or office to learn the details and ramifications of these decisions from this group of authorities. This audio program comes to you live on Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 12 noon to 2:00 pm EDT, via your phone or your computer. The format will allow for questions to be put to the panel during the program via email. Materials corresponding to the course may be downloaded or viewed online.
Planning Chairs
Robert B. Fitzpatrick, Esquire, Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC, Washington, D.C.
Frank C. Morris, Jr., Esquire, Epstein Becker & Green, PC, Washington, D.C.
Faculty
Professor Michael L. Foreman, Penn State's Dickinson School of Law
Thomas C. Goldstein, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C.
Professor Eric Schnapper, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA
For group tuition discounts, click on the Registration link at top and register online at the discounted rates, or go to the Group Webcast Page or email groupregistration@ali-aba.org for assistance.
Program Schedule
(All Times Eastern Standard)
12:00 noon Supreme Court Employment Law Update 2009
Panel discussion
1:40 pm Audience Questions
2:00 pm Adjournment
Total 60-minute hours of instruction: 2.0; Total 50-minute hours of instruction: 2.4
Suggested Prerequisite: Experience in employment law and litigation generally.
Educational Objective: To learn about the recently-issued decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the area of employment law.
Level of Instruction: Intermediate
Times
Eastern: 12:00 noon - 2:00 pm
Central: 11:00 am – 1:00 pm
Mountain: 10:00 am - 12:00 noon
Pacific & Arizona: 9:00 - 11:00 am
Alaska: 8:00 - 10:00 am
Hawaii: 6:00 - 8:00 am
