7 US Supreme Court cases on employment law (2019-2020)

[Watch the video]

During its 2019-2020 term, the US Supreme Court decided seven cases on employment law, including the game-changing decision that Title VII prohibits discrimination because an individual is gay or transgender.

Title VII, gay and transgender employees: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. Bostock v. Clayton County  (6-3).

Ministerial exception: The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses foreclose the adjudica­tion of employment-discrimination claims brought by fifth grade teachers at Catholic schools. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (7-2).

ACA Contraceptive mandate: Federal agencies had the authority under the ACA to promulgate religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (7-2).

Age discrimination: The ADEA demands that federal personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age. To obtain reinstatement, dam­ages, or other relief related to the end result of an employment deci­sion, a showing that a personnel action would have been different if age had not been taken into account is necessary, but if age discrimi­nation played a lesser part in the decision, other remedies may be ap­propriate. Babb v. Wilkie (8-1).

Causation under 42 USC §1981: A §1981 plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the plaintiff’s race was a but-for cause of its injury, and that burden remains con­stant over the life of the lawsuit. Comcast v. Natl Assoc of African American-Owned Media (9-0).

ERISA statute of limitations: A plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” under §1113(2) of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading. To meet §1113(2)’s “actual knowledge” requirement, the plaintiff must in fact have become aware of that information. Intel Corp Committee v. Sulyma (9-0)

ERISA standing: Plan beneficiaries whose benefits are defined lack standing to sue the plan for alleged poor investment of assets. Win or lose, they would still receive the exact same monthly benefits they are already entitled to receive. Thole v. U.S. Bank (5-4).

SCOTUS: "Actual knowledge" means actual knowledge

The US Supreme Court can get behind being unanimous when faced with a statutory phrase that is written in "plain and unambiguous statutory language."

Intel Corp Committee v. Sulyma (US Supreme Ct 02/26/2020) [PDF] dealt with a statute of limitations that began to run when the plaintiff had “actual knowledge” of an alleged breach. The Court held that “actual knowledge” means …. well …. actual knowledge.

ERISA §1113(2) requires plaintiffs with "actual knowledge" of an alleged fiduciary breach to file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, rather than within the 6-year period that would otherwise apply.

Sulyma sued ERISA plan administrators alleging that they had managed the plans imprudently, and the administrators argued that Sulyma filed suit more than three years after they had disclosed their investment decisions to him. Although Sulyma had visited the website that hosted many of these disclosures many times, he testified that he did not remember reviewing the relevant disclosures and that he had been unaware of the allegedly imprudent investments while working at Intel.

The 9th Circuit held that the administrators were not entitled to summary judgment because Sulyma's testimony created a dispute as to when he gained "actual knowledge" for purposes of §1113(2).

The US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, and held that a plaintiff does not necessarily have "actual knowledge" under §1113(2) of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading. To meet §1113(2)’s "actual knowledge" requirement, the plaintiff must in fact have become aware of that information. This is based on ERISA’s "plain and unambiguous statutory language." To have "actual knowledge" of a piece of information, one must in fact be aware of it.