CalEmployeeRights

US Supremes Decide Retaliation Case

            As previously discussed in this blog, one employment case before the Supreme Court during this term was Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee.  Well, yesterday the Court issued its ruling in favor of the employee. 

 

Generally this case asked whether or not the anti-retaliation provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act extends coverage to an employee who speaks out about discrimination in response to question put to her by her employer during an internal investigation as opposed to the employee actually initiating the complaint.  In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court held that the anti-retaliation provision protected the employee in such situations. 

 

            This ruling comports with how California courts interpret the protections of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. 

 

For a more complete examination of the Crawford case and the arguments each side made, look at my earlier blog entry.  Additionally, a good discussion of the Supreme Court’s holding can be found here.

 

--Michael Sachs

Supreme Court to Decide Enforcability of Arbitration Agreement in a CBA

     Taking a look at the United Supreme Court for a moment, oral argument for 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett is set for December 1, 2008.  This case presents the question: Is an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement enforceable, thereby waiving an employee’s right to file statutory discrimination claims?

     This should be a heavily fought case as the Supreme Court basically punted on this issue in its previous opinion of Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp. (1998) 525 U.S. 70.  There the Court stated that it would not reach the question of whether a waiver in a collective bargaining agreement was enforceable, even if such waiver was clear and unmistakable. 

Employment Cert Petitions Before US Supreme Court

The final two employment cases before the Supreme Court on Cert petitions to be decided on January 11, 2008 are James v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Progress Energy, Inc. v. Taylor.  James asks who, the judge or the jury, should decide if retaliatory actions are severe enough to violate Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq   Taylor relates to whether or not an employee can retroactively release claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 USC 2601 et seq.

More after the jump.