Supreme Court gets down to work
June 19, 2008
The Supreme Court issued four employment-related opinions this morning, with two favoring workers and two favoring employers:
- The court made it easier for older workers to show age discrimination in disparate impact cases, in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (PDF).
- In MetLife v. Glenn (PDF), the court agreed that when the same entity administers and funds an ERISA benefits plan (as MetLife did here), it has a financial incentive to deny disability claims – a conflict of interest that should be weighed in favor of employees who challenge a denial of benefits.
- The court pre-empted California’s first-in-the-nation ban on employers’ use of state money to influence employees’ views of unions, in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (PDF).
- Reversing an appeals court, it upheld Kentucky’s retirement system, which denies disability benefits to workers who are eligible to retire when they become disabled. (They receive their regular retirement benefits, but no disability benefits.) The case is Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (PDF).
The court also decided one criminal case, Indiana v. Edwards (PDF), rejecting an argument that a defendant who is deemed competent to stand trial has the constitutional right to represent himself.
Hat tip to our sister blog, DC Dicta.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related ContentComments
Got something to say?
-
Business
Business posts- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- It’s all for the kids
- Will CEG shareholders support EDF’s bid?
- Battle of the Beltway
- Any price is too high if you’re broke
- Maryland: 10th-fastest internet speeds in nation
- Where the deals are
- Phelps named Sportsman of the Year
- Can SUV sales make a comeback?
Law
Law posts- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- A case of mistaken identity
- Beware of the blogging juror
- Inmate sought to intervene in Wells Fargo suit
- What’s behind that law firm’s headcount?
- Law blog round-up
- This week in Maryland Lawyer
- A history of football in Baltimore, courtesy of a lawsuit
- Baltimore crime stuck at 12th-worst in U.S.
- First a mongrel Mercedes, now a botched Bentley
Recent Posts
- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- A case of mistaken identity
- It’s all for the kids
Recent Comments
- Jacki Pearlman: Unfortunately, the game will not live up to it’s hype. I am a diehard Redskins fan after being...
- Isolde: Anybody remember GreedyAssociates.com? That’s basically a forum for ads and political weirdos now. Why?...
- Liz Farmer: Thanks for chiming in guys. Ed, you are exactly right. I did not include this in my original post but...
- Rick Rigini: Did you ever read the children’s book Norman the Doorman?
- Ed Waters Jr.: In many articles, it seems the writers tend to overlook the fact that some people need an SUV (or...
On Commenting
We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.