The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2008-2009 session on Oct. 7 with three employment law cases on its docket.
Last session, the court expanded employees’ rights to claim retaliation under federal anti-discrimination law. This year, one decision facing the court deals with retaliation, while two others address discrimination.
Retaliation for internal complaints
When the court hears Crawford v. Nashville & Davidson County, it will answer the question of whether an employee may be terminated for cooperating in an internal sexual harassment investigation.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act clearly protects employees who have filed EEOC complaints. However, the law doesn’t address what employers may or may not do to employees involved in internal complaints. That’s the issue the Supreme Court will take up.
In this case, Vicki Crawford was asked to testify in an internal hearing on a sexual harassment complaint filed by a co-worker against Crawford’s boss. Crawford testified about sexually inappropriate acts her boss had committed. The employer, the Nashville & Davidson County school district, concluded the supervisor’s behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute sexual harassment. The school district ordered additional sexual harassment training.
If the school district had been content to stop there, it probably would have had no more problems. But then the district fired three women—including Crawford—who had testified against the supervisor. Crawford filed a retaliation complaint and the district moved to have the case dismissed.
A federal district court sided with the school district, claiming Title VII protected only those who have filed complaints with the EEOC. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and now Crawford has appealed to the Supreme Court.
Discrimination, arbitration & unionized workers
In 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, the court will decide whether collective bargaining agreements that require individual members to arbitrate their rights under federal law are enforceable.
In this case, a building management company transferred security guards to porter and janitorial positions. It subcontracted security operations to an outside firm. All the workers transferred were over age 50. All the replacement security guards were younger.
The displaced guards filed a grievance with their union alleging age discrimination and denial of overtime opportunities. The union elected to pursue the overtime complaint, but not the age discrimination issue. The former security guards filed complaints with the EEOC.
The employer pointed to an arbitration agreement that claimed to be the “sole and complete remedy” for all such complaints. The employees countered that the union did not have the right to bargain away their individual rights to action. The federal court and appeals court agreed with the employees. The building management company has now appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Pregnancy discrimination
AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen addresses the phone company’s practice of not crediting time off for pregnancy toward seniority and retirement benefits. The company credits time for other temporary disabilities, but counts pregnancy leave as personal time.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the practice was disparate-treatment discrimination, allowing employees to claim the practice is a continuing Title VII and Pregnancy Discrimination Act violation. AT&T has appealed to the Supreme Court.
The justices will hear Hulteen on Oct. 24 and Pyett on Nov. 1. Oral arguments in Crawford have not yet been scheduled.
