LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
Employment Attorneys React to Supreme Court Decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court settled the question of whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s statutory duty to conciliate a remedy to a Title VII violation prior to filing a lawsuit is subject to some level of judicial review. The decision was unanimous and the answer...

New Supreme Court Case Could Have Huge Impact on Class Action Litigation

On April 27, 2015, in a development that could have significant implications for a wide variety of class action lawsuits, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition of for a writ of certiorari of online search firm Spokeo. The cert grant sets the stage for the Court to consider whether Congress...

Supremes to Employers: No, We Won't Make EEOC Force You To Settle

In one of the most bizarre employer appeals I've ever seen, a company called Mach Mining asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a suit by EEOC because EEOC didn't engage in sufficient conciliation efforts. Conciliation is a fancy term for trying to settle a case. It's done after EEOC makes one...

Supreme Court Says Denial of Confirmation Not Automatically Appealable

In a surprisingly casual opinion, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, has ruled that denial of confirmation of a chapter 13 plan does not give rise to a final order which can be appealed as a matter of right. Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank , No. 14-116 (5/4/15). The opinion can be found here...

The Supreme Court Decides Mach Mining LLC vs. EEOC: A “Win” For Employers?

by Terese Connolly and Mikela Sutrina Last week, in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC , the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII authorizes judicial review of the EEOC’s efforts to satisfy its statutory duty to conciliate before filing suit against an employer [lexis.com subscribers may access...

SCOTUS Returns to Unanswered Question from Symczyk

Remember the FLSA "pick-off" case? In Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk, the Court held that if an FLSA collective action becomes moot as to the only plaintiff (before additional plaintiffs were added), then the entire claim becomes moot (and the case is dismissed) [ an enhanced version of this...

Supreme Court Rules Debtor Entitled to Funds Remaining Upon Conversion of Chapter 13 Case

Acknowledging that the statutory language "does not say expressly" what should happen, the Supreme Court nevertheless ruled that undistributed funds held by the Chapter 13 trustee should be returned to the debtor following a conversion. The Court described its result as "the most sensible...

Divided Supreme Court: Belief of Patent Invalidity No Defense to Infringement

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) In a 6-2 ruling, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer recused, the U.S. Supreme Court today rejected claims by Cisco Systems Inc. that having a good faith belief that a patent is invalid can serve as a defense to claims of induced patent infringement ( Commil USA LLC...

Wellness Case Brings Healing for Bankruptcy Court Authority

Resolving an issue left open by two prior decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to entry of a final judgment by an Article III court, like the right to trial by jury, is a personal right which can be waived or consented away (subject to supervision by an Article III Court). The decision left...

Good-Faith Belief in Patent Invalidity Does Not Negate Induced Infringement

On Tuesday morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc . Reversing a 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court today held that a defendant’s good-faith belief regarding the invalidity of an asserted patent is not a defense...

U.S. Supreme Court Addresses Authority of Federal Bankruptcy Courts to Enter Final Orders and Judgments

The Wellness majority opinion is noteworthy for a number of reasons. As a practical matter, it permits this aspect of bankruptcy court practice—proceeding to final judgment in non-core matters on consent as being valid and constitutionally permissible—to continue. The world may end in...

Supreme Court Decides to Maintain the Viability of the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, But a Key Question Remains Unresolved

by Ben Feder Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall , the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed as long settled [ an enhanced version of this opinion is available...

Some Thoughts on EEOC v. Abercrombie

Now that I've had a chance to read the full opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie [lexis.com subscribers may access Supreme Court briefs and an enhanced opinion for this case], here are a few thoughts. First, some background: An assistant manager at A&F interviewed an applicant who wore a headscarf...

Supreme Court Majority Holds Threatening Speech Conviction Requires Intent Finding

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) Reversing a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, a U.S. Supreme Court majority today held that a conviction for making threatening communications under 16 U.S. Code Section 875(c) requires a showing of intent to harm by the speaker and not merely negligence...

The Unanswered Questions From EEOC v. Abercrombie

Building off of yesterday's posts regarding EEOC v. Abercrombie [lexis.com subscribers may access Supreme Court briefs and an enhanced opinion for this case] ( here and here ), there are two extraordinarily important questions left unanswered. I touched on this yesterday: What level of suspicion...

The Abercrombie Case

Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court decision issued yesterday in the Abercrombie case [lexis.com subscribers may access Supreme Court briefs and an enhanced opinion for this case] . For those who haven’t been following the Supreme Court docket this year (and only stumbled...

Supreme Court Holds That Bankruptcy Courts Can Adjudicate Stern Claims

By Evan Zisholtz In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts have the authority to adjudicate Stern claims so long as the litigant parties provide “knowing and voluntary consent.” This decision in Wellness International Network, et. al. v. Richard Sharif [lexis...

Supreme Court Decision Leaves Employers With Religious Accommodation Questions

by Rodney L. Bean and Kaitlin L. Hillenbrand Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its long-awaited opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc ., where it addressed questions surrounding the obligation of an employer to make a religious accommodation [lexis.com subscribers...

U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Appeal of Tyson Donning, Doffing Suit

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The U.S. Supreme Court this morning granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the appeal of a nearly $5.8 million verdict in favor of a class of Tyson Foods Inc. workers who brought a donning and doffing suit against the company ( Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Peg...

Lunch with Justice Scalia

I initially wanted to hold off on posting this article in order to not inundate the blog with Justice Scalia posts back-to-back ( see Abercrombie case ) but I got to thinking— Could there ever be too much Scalia ? I don’t think so. Regardless of whether you agree with his decisions or...

Baker Botts v. Asarco: The Supreme Court Shows Again That It Really Doesn’t Understand Corporate Bankruptcy Cases

by Ben Feder The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall was only partially clarified by this term’s opinion in Wellness International Network v. Sharif . The Court’s ruling...

Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of Third Circuit ‘Naked’ Short Selling Securities Suit

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear an appeal of a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling remanding a securities class action lawsuit over the alleged illegal “naked” short selling of a company’s stock back to state court Merrill...

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP: 8 Key Estate Planning Opportunities Arising From The Supreme Court's Decision On Same-Sex Marriage

By Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that a state ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional, in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The landmark ruling in the combined cases known as Obergefell v. Hodges [1] struck down every...

Supreme Court Says Lawyers Don't Get Paid for Defending Their Fees

A Texas law firm did a great job and beat back a punitive attack on their fees. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that they may not receive compensation for defending their work. Baker Botts, LLP v. ASARCO, LLC , No. 14-103, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 3920 (6/15/15) [subscribers can access an enhanced version...

EEOC, Abercrombie Settle Hijab Lawsuit

We went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and all I got was this lousy $45K? (Better than a lousy t-shirt, I guess.) Law360 reports that, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the high-profile religious discrimination and accommodation case...