Home » Archives by category » SCOTUS
Supreme Court Preview: Employment Attorneys Are Watching These Issues

Supreme Court Preview: Employment Attorneys Are Watching These Issues

​The U.S. Supreme Court’s new term begins on Oct. 4. Although only a few employment-related cases have been accepted so far, employment law attorneys are following some key issues that could impact the workplace.”The current docket is very light on employment cases, but there are potentially significant petitions that we are monitoring closely,” said Stephanie Adler-Paindiris, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Orlando, Fla. Members of the public will be able to listen to live audio of oral arguments again this term—a practice that began in 2020 when the court closed to the public due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although arguments will be heard in the courtroom this term, access will be strictly limited for now.  “Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the courtroom sessions will not be open to the public,” according to Patricia McCabe, public information officer for the court. “The court will continue to closely monitor public health guidance in determining plans.”Here are the cases and potential issues employers and HR professionals should be watching.Cases on the DocketArbitration. In the upcoming term, the Supreme Court will hear Badgerow v. Walters, which involves a whistleblower claim and whether a federal court has the authority to confirm or vacate an arbitration award in the case when the only basis for federal jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.”The fact that the Supreme Court took an arbitration case … is important,” said Joe Beachboard, an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in Los Angeles. “It’s a very complicated case.” Essentially, it involves an employee who signed an arbitration agreement and is seeking to bring a whistleblower claim outside of the arbitration forum. Oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 2. Employee benefits. The court will also hear an employee benefits case, Hughes v. Northwestern University, regarding a claim that plan participants were charged excessive fees and plan fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.The participants claim that the university recommended a fund that had high fees and poor results, Beachboard explained. The lower courts rejected the claim, noting that the participants could have chosen to invest in other funds. Oral argument is scheduled for Dec. 6. ACA disability discrimination. CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe involves a disability discrimination claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and by extension, Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The high court was asked to decide whether the plaintiffs can bring a “disparate impact” claim for disability discrimination. “Disparate impact” means that a seemingly neutral policy is discriminatory in practice based on a protected category, such as disability.The plaintiffs in this case are living with HIV/AIDS and obtain their medication through employer-sponsored health plans. Their prescription plans authorize “in-network” prices for specialized medication only if it is received by mail or picked up at a CVS pharmacy. The plaintiffs claim the policy forces them to “forego essential counseling and consultation from specialty pharmacists.” CVS argued that Section 504 …