Browsing articles tagged with " Supreme Court"
Uncategorized
Feb 20, 2008
Comments Off

BREAKING: LaRue Bats 1000 (Or 9, As the Case May Be)

In a much-awaited decision just released, all 9 Supreme Court Justices have agreed that plan beneficiaries (regular joes like you and me) are able to file suit under ERISA to recover money we would have had if the administrators had followed our instructions.

Prior to the LaRue holding, most courts agreed that ERISA limited suits to recover plan losses had to be brought by the plan, for the plan as a whole. LaRue opens the door for regular people to sue for losses to their individual account, reasoning that their account balance is part of the plan balance.

The decision did a fine job of weaving around the most dicey parts of the case beneath – whether “make whole” remedies (i.e. money) are “equitible” enough to be recoverable under ERISA.

More to come.

On the web:
ScotusWiki on LaRue
Workplace Prof Blog Analysis

Uncategorized
Jan 15, 2008
Comments Off

Wal Mart Settles Supreme Court Case

A couple of months ago, Wal Mart Assistant General Counsel Miguel Rivera made it clear via a memo to its outside counsel that the legal profession was anything but safe from its policy of exporting efficiency on its suppliers. (They put a moratorium on across-the-board rate hikes, citing skyrocketing associate salaries. Really.)

Well, now it seems the Supreme Court is no exception; the retail giant settled an ADA lawsuit yesterday that would have given the Court the chance to answer a long-pondered question – whether the ADA requires employers to place disabled employees in available positions or simply allow them to participate in the application process. The Court dismissed the case, and the question remains unanswered.

To me, it’s just more proof that, for all its benefits, efficiency (economic or judicial) can still leave you so unsatisfied.

Uncategorized
Dec 5, 2007
Comments Off

Me Three – the Court Questions Your Buddy’s Testimony

The Supreme Court took up the issue of “me too” evidence in discrimination claims on Monday, hearing arguments in Mendelsohn v. Sprint. The case hinges on whether or not testimony of other employees who were allegedly discriminated against (“me too” evidence) is admissible as circumstantial evidence of another employee’s alleged discrimination. Did that make sense?

It’s like this. You sue your employer. I say “hey, that happened to me, too” (thus the catchy name) usually under a different supervisor. I testify at your trial as to my events, thus providing “evidence” that your discrimination happened.

As always, SCOTUSblog (and now the awesome SCOTUSwiki – my new favorite website) has the best coverage. Not to be outdone the New York Times has a synopsis of the orals, noting that the Roberts Court seemed to be more conservative than Bush’s EEOC, which would like to allow “me too” information when it can jive with the relevance and nonprejudicial rules of evidence.

Most of the Court seemed to think that letting in “me too” evidence would necessitate “minitrials” within trials to determine whether or not the information was accurate, and therefore relevant. From Paul Cane’s Argument for Sprint:

Had the “me, too” evidence been admitted, then we would have had to respond with what might be called “not you, either” evidence. And then the plaintiff would have made a rebuttal to that showing, and we would have had trials within a trial on whether these couple of persons that plaintiff identified as potential bad actors were, in fact, bad actors…

I think they should disallow the use of the evidence until someone comes up with descriptions that don’t make us sound like we’re fighting over a Tonka truck.

Justice Souter said the evidence would be highly prejudicial, but could be probative too. After all, if your supervisor is discriminating and mine is discriminating, isn’t that a sign of something? Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia didn’t think so. Turns out, this is a really good oral transcript to read if you’re a 2L stuck in evidence, because it goes to show you can be a Supreme Court Justice and still not know what Rule 403 really covers.

And then Justice Breyer sort of went off the deep end a little and said that “me too” evidence couldn’t be allowed in or “[w]e’ll have trials that last a thousand years…”

A thousand years. Hmm. So, like longer than the time between now and the Magna Charta. Maybe the Court should start taking on more mandatory retirement cases…

Anyway, as posted here, this decision could have pretty sweeping effects on future pattern and practice cases. It’s unlikely this is an issue the Court will balk on (unlike, say, 401(k) recovery for individual claimants).

Pages:«123456»

Switch to our mobile site