Law Commons^™

Brief In Opposition. Idaho Department Of Corrections V. Fuller, 138 S.Ct. 1345 (2018) (No. 17-959), Eric Schnapper, Ericka Birch, Kass Hartstad

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED The court of appeals concluded that a reasonable jury could find that actions by supervisors at the Idaho Department of Corrections created a hostile work environment. Petitioner does not seek review of that holding. The question presented is: Did the court of appeals err in concluding that the record contained sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to infer that the actions of those supervisors were gender-based?

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Kirk V. Invesco, Limited, 138 S.Ct. 1164 (2018) (No. 17-762), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4618, 2017 Wl 5665441, Eric Schnapper, Nitin Sud

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that covered employees who work more than 40 hours in a week must generally be paid overtime at a rate one and one-half times their regular rate. To assure compliance with that overtime rule, the Act and governing regulations require employers to maintain records of all hours worked by covered employees. If an employer has failed to keep the legally required records, the burden on the employee under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. is simply to "produce[] sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter …

Reply Brief. Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

Petitioner's Reply Brief. Riley V. Elkhart Community Schools, 137 S.Ct. 1328 (No. 16-533), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 593, 2017 Wl 712023, Eric Schnapper, Robin Remley

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in promotion or hiring, is a plaintiff required to show that the position in question was filled by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) In Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, this Court held that in a case of alleged discrimination in hiring or promotion, a plaintiff “might seek to demonstrate that [the employer's] claim to have promoted a better qualified applicant was pretextual by showing that she was in fact better qualified than the person chosen for the position.” Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. recognized that the …

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. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3646, 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief In Opposition. City Of Houston V. Zamora, 136 S.Ct. 2009 (2016) (No. 15-868), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1615, 2016 Wl 1445907, Eric Schnapper, Kim Ogg, Scott Poerschke, Randall L. Kallinen, Robert Mcknight, Jr.

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the liability standard in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011), apply to retaliation claims under Title VII? (2) Under Staub, where a supervisor for an unlawful purpose has engaged in conduct that was intended to and did in fact cause an adverse employment action, the existence of an independent investigation by other officials does not limit liability unless that investigation reveals a new basis for that adverse action that is “unrelated” to the conduct of the supervisor. The second question presented is: Should the Court overturn the decision in Staub, and hold that an …

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 …

Brief For Respondents. Tyson Foods, Inc. V. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016) (No. 14-1146), 2015 Wl 5634431, David C. Frederick, Derek T. Ho, Matthew A. Seligman, Robert L. Wiggins Jr., Scott Michelman, Scott L. Nelson, Allison M. Zieve, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether, in this class and collective action for wage-and-hour violations arising out of an employer's failure properly to compensate employees for time spent donning and doffing protective equipment and walking between sites where work was performed, the district court abused its discretion in granting certification where plaintiffs proceeded to prove the amount of work they did using individual timesheet evidence and representative proof concerning donning, doffing, and walking times in accordance with Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946).

2. Whether a class or collective action may be certified when it contains members …

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 …

Brief Amicus Curiae For The National Employment Lawyers Association In Support Of Petitioner. Green V. Brennan, 136 S.Ct. 1769 (2016) (No. 14-613), 2015 Wl 4381189, Roberta L. Steele, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Respondents. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. V. Busk, 135 S.Ct. 513 (2014) (No. 13-433), 2014 Wl 3866627, Mark R. Thierman, Joshua D. Buck, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(1) Does the time an hourly employee spends participating in an employer-mandated anti-theft search constitute "work" within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act?

(2) If such a search occurs at the end of the workday, is the employee’s time nonetheless non-compensable as a postliminary activity under the Portal-to-Portal Act?

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Debord V. Mercy Health System Of Kansas, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2664 (2014) (No. 13-1118), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1120, Eric Schnapper, Mark A. Buchanan

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids an employer to retaliate against any employee because that worker "opposed" unlawful discrimination.

The question presented is:

Does section 704(a) prohibit retaliation against a worker because of the worker's statements:

(1) only when the statements are made to the worker's own employer or to federal or state anti-discrimination agencies (the rule in the Tenth and Fourth Circuits), or (2) also when the worker's statements are made to any other person (the rule in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits)?

Reply Brief. Sandifer V. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3416, Eric Schnapper, Aaron B. Maduff, Michael L. Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Robert F. Childs, Jr., Abby Morrow Richardson, David L. Kern

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Petitioners. Sandifer V. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2320, Eric Schnapper, Aaron B. Maduff, Michael L. Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Robert F. Childs, Jr., Abby Morrow Richardson, David L. Kern

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Sandifer V. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2012 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4304, Eric Schnapper, Aaron B. Maduff, Michael L. Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Robert F. Childs, Jr., Abby Morrow Richardson, David L. Kern

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the period of time during which a covered employee must be paid begins when the worker engages in a principal activity. Donning and doffing safety gear (including protective clothing) required by the employer is a principal activity when it is an integral and indispensable part of the activities for which the worker is employed. Such requirements are common in manufacturing firms. However, under section 203(o) of the Act an employer need not compensate a worker for time spent in “changing clothes” (even if it is a principal activity) if that time is …

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?

Brief For Respondent, Duryea, Pa. V. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) (No. 09-1476), 2011 Wl 175871, Cynthia L. Pollick, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

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.

Reply Brief. Staub V. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (No. 09-400), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1916, Patricia Ann Millet, Eric Schnapper, Julie L. Galassi

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?

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Perez V. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (No. 09-1535), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4245, Eric Schnapper, Erika Deutsch Rotbart

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Where a discrimination plaintiff asserts that the ultimate decisionmaker who dismissed her was influenced by a different official who acted with an unlawful motive, must the plaintiff prove that the unltimate decisionmaker was a "mere conduit" for the motives of the unlawfully motivated official?

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.

Brief Amici Curiae Of The National Employment Lawyers Association, The Naacp Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc., And Marianne Sawicki, In Support Of Respondent, 549 U.S. 1334 (2007) (No. 06-341), 2007 Wl 966520, Eric Schnapper, Marissa Tirona, Theodore Shaw

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 …