Labor and Employment Law Commons^™

Reply Brief. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 9443770, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group?* (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Flowers V. Troup County School District, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016) (No. 15-1144), 2016 Wl 1042969, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., held in an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, that a plaintiff may ordinarily prove the existence of an unlawful motive by establishing a prima facie case and demonstrating the falsity of the employer’s proffered explanation for the disputed employment, and that a plaintiff who does so need not also offer some other additional evidence of discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit held in this Title VII action that the existence of an unlawful motive may not be established in that manner; a plaintiff who establishes a prima facie case and the …

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3941, 2015 Wl 6748880, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2659, 2015 Wl 4651685, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Brush V. Sears Holding Corp., 568 U.S. 1143 (2013) (No. 12-268), 2013 U.S. Lexis 925, Eric W. Scharf, Wayne R. Atkins, Eric Schnapper, Brian D. Buckstein

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she opposed discrimination forbidden by Title VII. The lower courts are divided as to how such anti-retaliation provisions apply to management officials, such as personnel or EEO officials, whose duties include assuring compliance with Title VII or implementing an employer’s anti-discrimination policy.

The question presented is: Are management officials: (1) subject to exclusion from protection under section 704(a) if their actions are within the scope of their official duties (the rule in the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits),
(2) protected under …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Dellinger V. Science Applications International Corp. (No. 11-598), 2011 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2153, Eric Schnapper, Zachary A. Kitts, John J. Rigby

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the anti-retaliation provision in section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to retaliation by an employer against a job applicant? (2) Is the private cause action provided by section 16(b) of the FLSA available to a job applicant who is retaliated against by an employer?

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2135, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt, Anthony Franze

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Petitioner, Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 Wl 3501186, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she engaged in certain protected activity. The questions presented are:

(1) Does section 704(a) forbid an employer from retaliating for such activity by inflicting reprisals on a third party, such as a spouse, family member or fiance, who is closely associated with the employee who engaged in such protected activity?

(2) If so, may that prohibition be enforced in a civil action brought by the third party victim?

Supplemental Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2990, Eric Schnapper, David Suetholz

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Supplemental Brief For Respondent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. V. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (No. 05-259), 2006 Wl 690256, Donald A. Donati, William B. Ryan, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

Respondent submits this supplemental brief pursuant to Rule 25.5 of this Court.

Under the unique circumstances of this case, the brief for the United States constitutes "intervening matter that was not available in time to be included in a brief." A majority of the government’s argument consists of an attack on the literal reading of section 704(a) advanced respondent. If this Court were to adopt the government’s narrow reading of section 704(a), it is far from certain that respondent would prevail. The original panel of the Sixth Circuit that heard this case applied a version of the "materially adverse" formulation …