Today, the Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously in Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22-1218, that cases involving arbitrable disputes subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) must be stayed rather than dismissed outright. As a matter of statutory interpretation, the Court reasoned that the words “shall” and “stay” in Section 3 of the FAA had
Supreme Court
Supreme Court eases employees’ burden to establish SOX retaliation claims and possibly other whistleblower claims
By Amanda Brown & Heather Raun on
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Murray v. UBS Securities LLC, No. 22-660, which addressed the proper framework for establishing a whistleblower claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). Under SOX, an employee who works for a covered company is protected from retaliation if they disclose information that the employee reasonably believes shows a violation of federal securities law, SEC rules, or any federal law related to fraud against shareholders. In Murray, the Court held that an employee is not required to prove that their employer acted with animus when it engaged in an adverse action against the employee.
In Murray, a research strategist at a securities firm voiced concerns to his supervisor about leaders of the firm’s trading desk purportedly engaging in unethical and illegal efforts to skew his independent reporting on commercial mortgage-backed securities. Despite receiving a strong performance review, the employee was subsequently terminated, which the employer alleged was a result of reduction in force. The employee then filed a SOX complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) and, after the 180-day waiting period passed without a final decision from the DOL, subsequently filed suit in federal district court.Continue Reading Supreme Court eases employees’ burden to establish SOX retaliation claims and possibly other whistleblower claims
Understanding the employment implications of the Supreme Court decision upholding DACA
By Michael Lombardino & Abby Kotun on
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision allowing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to continue operating. In so holding, the Court found the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not provide an adequate justification for terminating the DACA program and, thereby, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[1] But the Court’s decision does not resolve the matter entirely.
The Court did not rule on the legality of the DACA program itself. Instead, it merely repudiated the way DHS tried to rescind it. Although the Court held the DHS’s justification to terminate DACA was arbitrary and capricious, it recognized the DHS has the authority to rescind the program if it follows the required APA procedure. Thus, the DHS could try again to end the program by explaining more clearly its reasons for doing so.
Below, we answer two questions: (1) What is the status of the DACA program; and (2) What impact will the Court’s ruling have on DACA recipients and employers?Continue Reading Understanding the employment implications of the Supreme Court decision upholding DACA
Expanding the definition of sex: SCOTUS rules employers cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
By Lori Armstrong Halber & Gavin Carpenter on
On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020), which held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 6-3 opinion authored by…
Supreme Court poised to hear oral arguments in blockbuster LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination cases
By Lori Armstrong Halber & Gavin Carpenter on
On October 8, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three landmark LGBTQ+ rights cases, which could broaden protections for the LGBTQ+ community by prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation, transgender-status, or gender identity under federal law. Currently, conflicting federal cases and shifts in interpretation and policies at administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice have left employers without clear guidance on what is, or is not, protected at a federal level (separate and apart from state and local protections). In Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, since consolidated, the Court will consider whether the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, the Court will consider whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people. The cases are summarized below.
Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda / Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia – factual background
Donald Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express, Inc., responsible for taking clients on tandem skydives, strapped hip-to-hip and shoulder-to-shoulder to the client. In June 2010, while carrying out a tandem skydiving session with a young woman, Zarda stated he was gay in defense of a female client’s allegation that he touched her inappropriately. Altitude Express terminated Zarda’s employment on the grounds that he shared inappropriate information with clients regarding his personal life. After a three-judge panel ruled against Zarda, the Second Circuit, in an en banc decision, overturned the lower court, holding that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII.Continue Reading Supreme Court poised to hear oral arguments in blockbuster LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination cases