Skip to content

Tag: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

2019-2020 Supreme Court Labor and Employment Cases

Image of a gavel to represent the Supreme Court's labor and employment decision from this term.
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

This is one of the most impactful years that the Supreme Court has had on labor and employment law. The Court took on a number of important and controversial issues including gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination, the DACA program, the standard that must be met for proving age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and race discrimination under Section 1981, whether the ministerial exception applies to teachers at religious schools, and whether the government properly exempted religious institutions from the contraception mandate under the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare). The impacts and the follow-up cases clarifying the decisions from this term will continue to be felt for years, especially in the context of issues involving sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County (Consolidated with Altitude Express v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

This was by far the biggest case to come out of the Supreme Court in employment law in years. The Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their gender identity (transgender discrimination) and their sexual orientation. Essentially, employers cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of their sex, which includes gender identity and sexual orientation. Employers should update their handbooks to ensure that discrimination against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited. Employers should also retrain managers to ensure that employees do not suffer these types of prohibited discrimination. As a reminder, a number of states have their own laws on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. This ruling will not affect those state laws. Anyone with questions should first check the laws of their state to determine the best approach to resolving sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination issues.

Justice Alito’s dissent outlined the most controversial issues that will be decided by future cases (these are described below in each subheading). The biggest questions that remain from the case involve the interaction between the law’s prohibition against gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination and its protection of religious liberty.

“[B]athrooms, locker rooms, [and other things] of [that] kind”

When will an employee that is transitioning be permitted (or required) to use the locker room or bathroom associated with their gender identity? How does this right interact with the rights of other employees that may not feel comfortable sharing a bathroom or a locker room with an employee who has not had gender reassignment surgery? Courts will help resolve this issue. Many states have their own statutes (and subsequent cases) clarifying these protections. It remains to be seen how the rights will be protected/interpreted under Title VII, but one should expect the law to settle along similar lines as those in the various states (i.e. it is likely that employees will have the right to use the locker room or bathroom associated with their gender identity at some point in the future).

Women’s Sports

Whether transgender athletes can or are required to participate in the team that is in line with their gender identity. This is not an employment issue (except for paid female athletes), but it is a question that will need to be resolved based on the ruling. Many states are examining this question for sports including most recently Idaho. It is an issue that will likely continue to be litigated.

Healthcare

There are likely to be lawsuits by transgender employees that have employer sponsored health plans that do not cover the cost of gender reassignment surgery. Many of these plans will likely start to cover the surgery due to social pressure anyway, but it is an issue that still needs to be resolved.

Freedom of Speech

Employees don’t have “freedom of speech” in the workplace. Companies can fire employees for what they say as long as the firing would not be for an unlawful reason (speech that is protected under the National Labor Relations Act, whistleblowing protections of various statutes, or protected by another law). For example, a company could and should fire someone for making a death threat against another employee. A company cannot fire someone because they say that the company needs a union.

The dissent in the Bostock case stated that “the Court’s decision may also pressure employers to suppress any statements by employees expressing disapproval of same-sex relationships and sex reassignment procedures. Employers are already imposing such restrictions voluntarily, and after today’s decisions employers will fear that allowing employees to express their religious views on these subjects may give rise to Title VII harassment claims.” The interaction of the decision with issues of religion and the protections that individuals have to practice their religion will undoubtedly be the most interesting.

Babb v. Wilkie

The Supreme Court ruled that under the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) a plaintiff only needs to prove that age is a motivating factor in an employment decision for there to be a violation of the ADEA. However, but-for causation (but for their age the employee would not have suffered the adverse employment action) is important to determining the appropriate remedy for a violation of the ADEA. For example, a plaintiff cannot obtain some forms of relief, like hiring, reinstatement, backpay, and compensatory damages without a showing of but for causation. Plaintiffs could get injunctive or other forward-looking relief if they cannot show that age was a but-for cause of the employment decision but merely a motivating factor.

The decision will make it easier for plaintiffs to obtain relief under the ADEA as some forms of relief may be available even if they cannot meet the but-for causation standard. 

Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a plaintiff must show that race was the but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury rather than  a mere motivating factor (one factor among others that lead to the adverse employment action).

The case will make it easier for companies to defend against Section1981 claims, but employees that cannot meet the but for causation standard may be able to meet the motivating factor standard under Title VII and choose to file a charge with the EEOC or their respective state agency.

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

While this is not strictly an employment law case, it will have a big impact on employment.

As I said in a prior post, “DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) protects certain people that were brought to the US as children from deportation and allows them to get a job or attend school. They cannot obtain permanent residency through the program but may obtain work authorization and continue to reside in the country. There are currently nearly 700,000 people that are in the DACA program.”

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s order to undo the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was arbitrary and capricious (the administration did not conduct a thorough review of all the relevant factors that it should have  taken into account such as any “legitimate reliance” that individuals had on the DACA memo, whether the government could have eliminated eligibility while continuing forbearance, and giving consideration to other policy alternatives). Instead, the Trump administration relied only on the illegality of providing the benefit by the prior administration as its reason for ending it.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania

This is one of the three major religious liberty cases that were before the Supreme Court this year. It may provide some insight into how the Court will view religious liberty issues in the future within an employment context, especially how they relate to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court concluded that:

As we have explained, RFRA [(Religious Freedom Restoration Act)] “provide[s] very broad protection for religious liberty.” Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S., at 693. In RFRA’s congressional findings, Congress stated that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise,” a right described by RFRA as “unalienable.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb(a)(1), (3). To protect this right, Congress provided that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless “it demonstrates that application of the burden . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §§2000bb–1(a)–(b). Placing Congress’ intent beyond dispute, RFRA specifies that it “applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise.” §2000bb–3(a). RFRA also permits Congress to exclude statutes from RFRA’s protections. §2000bb–3(b).

The essence of the decision is that the government acted lawfully to expand the contraception exemption for employers like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Justices Alito and Gorsuch wished to go further and rule that the RFRA required the government to do so, but that issue was not necessarily ripe at the time. Of course, that will likely be one of the major cases before the Court in the future.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

In this case, the Supreme Court applied the ministerial exception to teachers at religious schools. The ministerial exception bars ministers from suing churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious institutions for employment discrimination. The Court, in a 7-2 decision, found that the school and religious institution meet the exception because the teachers are responsible for instructing the students in their faith. Whether the exception applies depends heavily on the beliefs of the particular faith and the employee’s role in teaching or developing it.

As a reminder, the ministerial exception grew out of the idea that religious institutions should be able to remove ministers without interference from the government. This makes sense for many reasons. For example, it would be weird, and unjust for a Lutheran church to be sued for discrimination because the pastor became a Buddhist and the church terminated his contract. The minister of a Lutheran church or the minister (or equivalent position) of any faith should obviously believe the teachings of that particular faith to hold that position.

Other issues and forms of discrimination are a little less clear (such as disability issues) but the Supreme Court determined that the employees subject to the ministerial exception do not have that protection. The reach of the exception will generally be limited as it only applies to people that teach the faith (i.e. are ministers). It is not going to be broadened to apply to those that work at religious institutions that are not tasked with ministerial duties (teaching the faith) such as janitors, administrators, and even those that work at many nonprofits that are owned by religious institutions (such as universities and hospitals).

Conclusion

This was a huge year for labor and employment decisions from the Supreme Court. The Court altered the impact of Title VII by finding that it protects individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. It also decided three cases regarding protections for religious beliefs (it found for the religious institutions in all three cases) including one case where the Court found that states cannot bar taxpayer aid to parochial and other religious run schools if they provide aid to nonreligious schools (essentially the Court found that states cannot discriminate against schools based on their religion). It seems inevitable that there will be a clash between religious protections and issues involving gender identity and sexual orientation. Courts will need to determine how these rights interact.

The information provided in this blog is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, then you should speak with a lawyer about your specific issues. Every legal issue is unique. A lawyer can help you with your situation. Reading the blog, contacting me through the site, emailing me or commenting on a post does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and me.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.

2020 Labor & Employment Law Predictions

Image of a man holding a "Happy New Year" sign to kick off the 2020 labor and employment law predictions for the Texas Labor Law Blog
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

2020 has arrived and so have my 2020 labor and employment law predictions. One side note, I am not going to repeat my 2019 labor and employment law predictions that are likely to happen in 2020 (new states that protect medical marijuana use outside of work, increased sexual harassment charges, the elimination of the H-4 EAD program, the NLRB issuing the joint employer standard, more states passing paid family leave, independent contractor issues arising, notices of inspection (I-9 inspections) increasing, and the Supreme Court’s decision on DACA.) So what’s new in 2020? Let’s dive right in.

1. Minimum Wage Increases Will Occur in a Number of States and Ballot Initiatives Will Be Undertaken to Get Them on the Ballot in Additional States

Florida is one state that will have a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The bill would raise the wage to $10 by September 30, 2021 and then increase it by one dollar every year until the wage reaches $15 in 2026. It is likely to pass as 25 out of the 27 ballot initiatives to increase the minimum wage were approved from 1988 to 2018

Arizona (Arizona Hospital Worker Minimum Wage and Insurance Regulations Initiative), Idaho (Idaho Minimum Wage Increase Initiative), and Missouri (Missouri Prohibit State Preemption of Local Minimum Wage and Benefits Laws Initiative) also have potential ballot measures related to the minimum wage next year. Each of them are in the gathering signatures stage and more states could potentially follow suit. Arizona’s law is for hospital workers, Idaho’s law would raise the minimum wage to $12 by 2024, and Missouri’s would prohibit the state from stopping local governments from enacting their own minimum wages.

2. Retail Closures and Other Layoffs (Perhaps in the Energy Sector) Continue to Remain High or Accelerate

Ok. So, this is not exactly a labor and employment law prediction, but it affects employment law. Over 9,000 stores closed in 2019 (more retail stores closed than opened). Even if the number of retail closures is not as high next year, there is still the probability that there will be a number of closures

In the world of oil and gas, there are a lot of companies with debt maturities coming due in 2020 or 2021 (see this article from the Wall Street Journal discussing the $120 billion debt wall these companies will face through 2023), and oil prices have been below the break-even point for many drilling sites. It is possible that there could be a number of layoffs in that industry. Of course, the situation in Iran (the death of Soleimani and Iran’s reaction to his death), any decisions from OPEC, and any possible economic slowdowns or other geopolitical issues could change this.

Unemployment is still low and there are more job openings than there are people that can fill them. If a recession takes place, then everything will change.

The workplace and workforce is changing even if the situation for retail stores and the oil and gas industry improves and we avoid a recession. Many people have read articles about the jobs that supposedly won’t exist in the future, which is something to keep an eye on. In short, layoffs are a part of life and the economy. We can expect them to continue or increase in 2020.

3. Onboarding and Employee Retention Continues to Grow in Importance

No matter what happens next year with layoffs, there will be a lot of workers that will need to be trained, retrained and onboarded. Companies are finally starting to recognize they need to find, adequately train, and keep their employees because unemployment is at a low. In short, businesses are going to want to find the right people, train them well, and try to keep them given the lack of qualified and available employees. Remember, onboarding is more than just orientation. It is a long process to help workers become established in an organization and usually occurs over an extended period of time through a set process to help the employees adjust to their new job. Onboarding also takes more importance as certain jobs are eliminated, new technology is brought into a company, and workers change positions. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that “Over the 12 months ending in October, hires totaled 69.8 million and separations totaled 67.4 million, yielding a net employment gain of 2.4 million. These totals include workers who may have been hired and separated more than once during the year.” Again, there were 69.8 million people hired between October 2018 and October 2019. Onboarding, training, and employee retention have gained in importance over the past few years and will continue to do so.

4. The Governmental Agencies Gear Up for the Election by Releasing a Lot of New Regulations Before the Election Happens

The Congressional Review Act allows a new Congress to disapprove of any new regulation within a 60 legislative day window by a majority vote. If the vote succeeds, then the rule does not go into effect. It was only used once before the Trump administration. The Republican Congress under Trump used it 14 times.

The Trump administration and the agencies will push out new regulations and decisions to avoid their regulations being undone either by the Congressional Review Act or by the heads of the agencies after the election (assuming that a Democrat is elected). Many agencies that previously did not engage in much rulemaking are also engaging in rulemaking to avoid their new rules being overturned easily (through decisions). You can look to the NLRB (joint employer rule) and the DOL (overtime rule and joint employer rule) as prime examples of this.

5. Candidates Push Their Election Agendas Which Will Give us a Peek into the Labor and Employment Landscape in 2021

I wrote awhile back about the Democratic candidates. At that time there were around 25 different candidates. Most of those have basically fallen away. We can expect that President Trump and the eventual Democratic candidate will propose a number of different ideas that will affect the workplace.

I expect President Trump to push limiting immigration based on the belief that this will protect American jobs and perhaps he will also propose some kind of paid family leave program as he discussed in his 2016 campaign.

The Democratic candidate can be expected to support raising the minimum wage to $15, the PRO act (that would transform union organizing, eliminate right to work states, permit card check (union elections would not need to happen if enough authorization cards were signed), expand the definition of ‘joint employer’, permit secondary boycotts (targeting neutral worksites), adopt a more restrictive definition of independent contractors, and much more), and a paid family leave program. Depending on the final Democratic candidate, more proposals could go into effect. Moreover, the success of these proposals will depend on the final composition of the House and Senate (in addition to who controls the White House).

6. Union Elections and Organizing Increases this Year Especially in the Tech Sector

Unfortunately, I did not get to publish this blog post before this prediction started to come true (I swear I wrote this before I heard about the CWU trying to organize video game developers, you can ask my kids, but who can trust anyone under 5 years old…). The tech sector is going to become an increasing target of union organizing. Unfortunately, many companies do not treat their employees right (they work long hours, their concerns are not addressed, and many of their coworkers are let go for what feels like no reason to them). Mistreated employees are always the biggest threat and cause of union organizing. The tech sector is ripe for organizing because many companies fit this model.

7. More States Pass Employment Related Laws- Especially Variations of the Independent Contractor Law that California Adopted (the ABC Test)

Employment law has become more fragmented and more influenced by multiple sectors of government (federal, state, county, and city) with a greater influence at the local level than ever before. This is going to continue. This fragmentation affects almost every area of employment law (labor law has not been affected to the same degree). For example, a number of states have their own overtime salary threshold so the new federal overtime rule does not affect them and a number of states have begun to tighten their independent contractor rules (which means that companies must follow these complex rules for each state that they operate in).

This one is not so much a prediction as it is a statement of fact. With the current administration being more business friendly (and depending on the results of the election in 2020, that may continue for 4 more years) the trend of employment law is increasingly being done at the state and local level.

8. Mental Health Issues and the Workplace Become More Important

Nearly 1 in 5 adults had a mental illness in 2016.  Carley Sime at Forbes wrote “Mental health and substance abuse cost US businesses between $80 and $100 billion annually.” That is a cost that companies cannot ignore. In 2020 and throughout the decade more companies will recognize this cost and offer treatment and solutions to their staff.

The good news is that more companies are discovering that treatment works. The Center for Workplace Mental Health found that 80 percent of employees treated for mental health problems reported improvements in both their productivity and job satisfaction. 

More companies are recognizing the effects of mental health and wellbeing on their workforce and taking steps to prioritize these issues and ensure their employees feel supported.

9. There will be a Ton of Issues Around Free Speech and the Workplace (i.e. It is an Election Year).

This one feels like cheating. It hardly counts as a prediction. It is an election year.

Trump is a polarizing figure. Politics seems more divided now than any time in the last twenty years or so. “A 53-point [difference] separates the percentage of Republicans (65%) and the percentage of Democrats (13%) who believe the United States is headed in the right direction, according to data from the latest Economist/YouGov poll.”

We may be more divided now than any time since Thomas Jefferson and John Adams faced off (you really need to watch this video on what they said about each other in the campaign to understand how bad it was) With this being an election year, we also get to experience attack ads (here is a history of attack ads), which means that more people will have more fodder to attack supporters of one candidate.

Additionally, from a workplace perspective, the election will likely cause more people to talk about politics at work, which can be another polarizing situation you may want to be smart about. You can read about what to do here. This is something that will probably only get more divisive before it improves (some time after the 2020 presidential election but before the 2022 midterms). With the impeachment and the bitterness of this election we have reached a bit of a tipping point in divisive politics and can perhaps expect them to be more divisive and interfere with the workplace more than ever. 

10. The Cases Before the Supreme Court Put Increased Focus on Religion, Transgender Issues, and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace.

With a Supreme Court decision on whether sexual orientation is a protected characteristic and whether transgenderism is protected (see this previous article discussing Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda (sexual orientation discrimination cases)) and (R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (gender identity/transgenderism discrimination case)) this is an issue that will see more traction this year. Once these decisions come out there will be talk in many workplaces about sexual orientation, transgender issues, and religion in the workplace.

The Supreme Court cases on the ministerial exception add to this issue. Here is a breakdown from SCOTUSblog on those cases:

In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel, the justices will consider the scope of the “ministerial exception,” a court-created doctrine that prohibits courts from reviewing employment decisions by religious employers involving their ministers. Under the exception, courts must determine which employees serve a “ministerial function.” In these cases, which will be argued together, two California Catholic schools are challenging rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that teachers who sued the schools after the teachers’ contracts were not renewed were not, despite their religious duties, “ministers” for purposes of the exception. The schools tell the justices that the issues presented in the two cases are “vital to the daily operations of religious organizations,” and that “getting it right is crucial in protecting church-state relations.”

All of these Supreme Court decisions will cause a lot of talk about the place of religious beliefs and how they relate to the issue of sexual orientation and transgenderism/gender identity.

11. States Continue to Implement Restrictions on Noncompetition Agreements

This is something that is already happening in a number of states and now the FTC has also begun to weigh in on the issue.  The Federal Trade Commission recently held a public workshop to “examine whether there is a sufficient legal basis and empirical economic support to promulgate a Commission Rule that would restrict the use of non-compete clauses in employer-employee employment contracts. This follows a labor market workshop hosted by the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division in September 2019.”

Washington has a law that went into effect on January 1 that prohibits noncompetes for employees that earn less than $100,000 and independent contractors that earn less than or equal to $250,000.

Maryland also enacted a similar law last year that prohibits noncompetes for “employees earning equal to or less than $31,200 annually or $15 per hour.”

Maine’s law went into effect in 2019 and prohibits employers from entering into a noncompete agreement with an employee if they earn wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level.

New Hampshire passed a law in 2019 that prohibits employers from entering into or enforcing agreements with low-wage employees (those earning less than 200% of the federal minimum wage currently $14.50 an hour).

Rhode Island’s law went into effect on January 15. It prohibits noncompetes for nonexempt employees, certain graduate and undergraduate students, people 18 and under, and low wage employees (those earning less than 250% of the federal poverty level currently $600.48 per week ($31,225 / 52))

Conclusion

2020 is going to be a big year for employment and labor law issues. Employers should prepare for these upcoming changes to ensure that they are staying a step ahead of the competition. As usual, these issues will be followed this year at the Texas Labor Law Blog, and I hope you all stay ahead of the curve this year!        

The information provided in this blog is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, then you should speak with a lawyer about your specific issues. Every legal issue is unique. A lawyer can help you with your situation. Reading the blog, contacting me through the site, emailing me or commenting on a post does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and me.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.                                                                                                                                                                                    

Brett Holubeck (of Houston, Texas) is the attorney responsible for this site.