Posted by marykeating on September 1, 2010 under Interesting cases, Sex-based discrimination | 
Wal-Mart has appealed to the Supreme Court the Ninth Circuit’s green light for the massive class action suit. As reported here earlier, the class action could lead to disposition of 1.5 million claims by women blocked from promotional opportunities. The petition for review asks the Supreme Court to disallow a class action where each worker’s damages have to be separately calculated, and also complained of the sheer mass of the case. The petition makes two main arguments. One is based on the proper interpretation of the federal rule governing class actions. The other argument contends that the plaintiffs’ proof is eased by this method, and that trying a case in this way deprives WalMart of the right to trial by jury.
Lyle Denniston of Scotusblog predicts that the petition will be decided this coming term. If it is granted, then the parties will brief the issues, which are historic. There may not be enough time to conclude the case by the end of the coming term.
One easy prediction: the fact that there are now three women on the Supreme Court will be mentioned frequently (did you read it here first?)
Posted by marykeating on June 29, 2010 under Interesting cases |
The Supreme Court handed down a decision earlier this month that invalidated a large number of decisions made by the National Labor Relations Board, New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board, The Board investigates complaints against employers regarding union activity, certifies union elections, and has similar duties generally relating to organized labor. The Board is supposed to have five members, and a majority vote is enough. Unfortunately, for two years the Board has only two members. This is politics – when the third member’s term expired in 2007, when President Bush was a lame duck, no action was taken. The Board members are designed to be from different political parties, and if no one is nominated, or the Senate does not confirm, vacancies can linger. This happens in judicial openings, too, but in this case the fact that the Board made decisions with only two members meant it did not have a quorum, or majority, and therefore those decisions are no good.
The Senate responded by quickly confirming two more nominees, one a Republican former congressional staffer, and one a labor lawyer who had been given a recess appointment awaiting full action by the Senate, bringing the Board back to five.
The Supreme Court’s decision theoretically could require the rehearing of scores of cases. In the real world, though, the parties to the disputes got the decision and moved on, and will have no incentive to reopen the old wounds. In some cases, the employee might be in a different job, in some the challenged practice has been abandoned, and in all cases the cost to bring the case again will have to be considered. Still, more than 70 cases were pending in court over the Board’s actions; these will be returned, giving the newly invigorated Board plenty to do.
Posted by marykeating on June 20, 2010 under Interesting cases |
In Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. P. A., the Supreme Court decided that an inadvertent failure to name the correct party did not close the courtroom door to the plaintiff, so long as the defendant actually knew that the controversy was pending, and that it would have been named except for the plaintiff’s mistake.
This shifting of the blame for the mistake in getting a party’s name right is in line with the decades’ long departure from very formalistic legal pleading requirements, a gradual but steady progress. Still, missteps can doom cases. For example, someone is named as a defendant, but the plaintiff does not know that the defendant is dead; if the estate is not brought in within a short time period, the claim is unenforceable.
In the case before the Supreme Court, a different, but even more common, variation was in play. A cruise ship passenger was hurt on board. Her ticket required her to sue within a year and limited her damages to $75,000. While the back of the ticket identified the cruise ship owner as an Italian corporation called Costa Crociere S.P.A., the front of the ticket, and the marketing for the cruise, all referred to Costa Cruise Lines. Costa Cruise Lines negotiated with the injured passenger, but when that was unsuccessful she filed suit against Costa Cruise Lines. After the statute of limitations expired, the company defended on the basis that it was merely the marketing and sales agent and had no responsibility for the operation of the ship.
The Supreme Court’s opinion, written by Justice Sotomayor, rejected the gamesmanship urged by the defendant. The plaintiff’s failure to understand the different statuses of the parties was not the issue. Instead, the Court focused on the defendant. The defendant knew that the case was pending, and knew that the plaintiff had not caught the owner/marketing distinction in the corporate names. That knowledge prevented it from evading responsibility for defending the case.
This issue may seem like it belongs in civil procedure nerd kingdom, but these kinds of mistakes can arise easily. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, the cruise line’s ticket and website invited confusion over the identity of the cruise ship owner. Similar corporate names can easily lead someone to sue the wrong person. A business’s website and other marketing materials may use a company’s trade name, not the corporate name. This practice is common with franchised businesses, whose goodwill lies in the brand of the sandwich or hotel operation, not the corporate owner’s name. The Supreme Court (unanimously) got this right
Posted by marykeating on October 2, 2009 under Interesting cases, Race-based discrimination |
It’s the little things that can trip you up. This is true of lots of fields, from sports to carpentry to litigation. The Supreme Court just agreed to decide a case involving one of the critical little things: the statute of limitations for filing a claim of discrimination. The Court famously decided this issue two years ago in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. It refused to allow a wage discrimination case by a woman who made less than the men in the same jobs she held. She worked for years without knowing that she was paid less than the men around her; once she learned, she filed a claim of discrimination. Since the original decision to pay her less than the men had occurred years earlier, even though the effects of that decision were perpetuated and exaggerated as the years went by, the Court held her claim came too late.
Congress reversed this decision by amending the law in January; this was President Obama’s first enactment. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act applies to wage discrimination. Specifically, it governs a “compensation decision or other practice.” There have been some questions about how far the Lily Ledbetter law goes, but it cannot be stretched to protect the 6,000 unhappy applicants in Lewis v. Chicago.
That case will decide whether African-American applicants for firefighter positions should have filed claims of race discrimination within 300 days of the City announcing a discriminatory practice, or 300 days after the employer uses it. In the Lewis case, Chicago used a test that had a disparate impact against the African-American applicants, putting many in the “qualified” category, while most people in the “well-qualified” category were white. The applicants argued that the test did not accurately measure aptitude for firefighting, and therefore should not be used since it had the effect of weeding out African-Americans, not those who would fail at firefighting.
The applicants filed claims after the City hired from the well-qualified list; the Seventh Circuit held that they should have made claims within 300 days of the announcement of the lists. The United States has filed a brief in favor of the firefighters.
