Articles

U.S. Supreme Court

July, 2015

Supreme Court Wrap-Up

In ending its term in June, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered two very important decisions that impact employment law.

As a result of the decision in King v. Burwell, millions of people who received tax credits to pay for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act will get to keep them. The ruling allows the Act to continue without interruption.

Also, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal in all 50 states.

However, because such individuals continue to face discrimination in employment, there is an initiative to revise federal anti-discrimination law, i.e. Title VII, to include sexual orientation as a protected category. Fortunately, in Connecticut, state anti-discrimination law already protects gay individuals in employment.

In another case decided June 1, 2015, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Court held that an applicant for employment need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need.

In that case, a woman who was a practicing Muslim, wore a headscarf in conformance with her religion to a job interview. The store rejected her as conflicting with its “Look Policy.” Although Abercrombie argued that an applicant cannot show disparate treatment, i.e., discrimination, without first showing that an employer has “actual knowledge” of the applicant’s need for an accommodation, the Court rejected that argument. The Court held that the applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. Title VII does not impose a knowledge requirement.

Summary of Other Employment Cases

1. Oral complaint to supervisor sufficient for a retaliation claim under Fair Labor Standards Act, Greathouse v. JHS Sec. Inc., 784 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015)(conforming with U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kasten v. Saint Gobain Performance Plastics, 131 S.Ct. 1325, 179 L.Ed. 379 (2011).

2. Recent cases affecting teachers:

No violation of Due Process Clause since a failure to renew a public adjunct faculty teaching position is not a “discharge” and, as an at-will employee, teacher had no guarantee of continued employment or termination only for “just cause.” Martin v. Jay Bailey and Shyam Lodha, No. 3:12-cv-01384 (Conn. District Court, 2015).

Motion to strike granted in case holding that a non-renewal of a non-tenured teacher’s contract under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 10-151(c ) does not constitute a “discharge” under Connecticut’s freedom of speech statute, 31-51q. Sans-Symonik v. Hartford Public Schools, 2014 Conn. Super. j.d. of Hartford, (Peck, J.).