Authored by Dean R. Dietrich
Usually I write about new court decisions or other actions that have changed the landscape of employment law at the state and national level. This blog is different – it is about several decisions that have been made leaving the state of employment law exactly the way it is. This is welcome relief for human resource professionals because we do not have to think about changing how we function and how we give advice.
The United State Supreme Court recently made a number of decisions that do not change the landscape of employment law. A summary of the decisions includes:
- The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by a union to review a lower court ruling that allowed employers who are subject to a claim of violating the National Labor Relations Act from seeking to block the action by the National Labor Relations Board due to a proper legal challenge to the Board decision or board conduct. This means that employers still have the opportunity to file a legal challenge against the NLRB Board action.
- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal by a restaurant worker who claimed she was unlawfully terminated after a diabetic episode experienced in the workplace and thereby maintained the burden shifting process to litigate a claim of discrimination. Under the burden shifting test, the complaining party must show that they have a prima facie case by showing their inclusion in a protected category and that adverse employment action was taken against them. The employer then must show legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for taking adverse employment action. If that is shown, the complaining party must then show that the legitimate reasons were a pretext for acting based upon a discriminatory reason. This is the standard process for determining whether discrimination has occurred and that process stays the same.
- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a case from a Christian baker in California who had a policy against selling baked goods for same sex ceremonies. The California Appeals Court determined that such policy was unlawful discrimination by the baker’s business, and the U.S. Supreme Court let that ruling stand. This acknowledges the existence of state policy on unlawful discrimination.
- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a case involving the dismissal of a disability bias suit by a former firefighter when the former employee alleged that he was forced to retire because he was given a work assignment that aggravated an injury suffered by the employee. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed the case brought by the former firefighter. This again allowed the employer to continue their practices of requiring employees to perform necessary work within the job description of the position.
All of these decisions show that the precedent of previous employment law decisions will continue which provides stability for human resource professionals when providing advice to their company on employment law issues.
