Sign Up for Case Law Summary Newsletters at the
FindLaw Newsletter Subscription Center


Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Labor & Employment Law : From 10/01/01 To 07/01/02

Number of summaries found: 16
Search For More Summaries

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law
Title: BE&K CONSTR. CO. v. NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD.
Date: 06/24/02
Case Number: 01-518
Summary: The NLRB's definition of a retaliatory suit (by an employer against a union) as one brought with a motive to interfere with the exercise of protected rights under the National Labor Relations Act, is invalid because it covers a substantial amount of genuine petitioning.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Commercial Law, Labor & Employment Law, Tax Law
Title: US v. FIOR D'ITALIA, INC.
Date: 06/17/02
Case Number: 01-463
Summary: Tax law authorizes the IRS to use the "aggregate estimation" method in examining a restaurant's credit card slips and assessing an employer's Federal Insurance Contribution Act liability, rather than determining the amount of tips actually received by each employee.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment Law
Title: DEVLIN v. SCARDELLETTI
Date: 06/10/02
Case Number: 01-417
Summary: An unnamed class member, who objects in a timely manner to the approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing, may bring an appeal without first intervening.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law
Title: CHEVRON USA, INC. v. ECHAZABAL
Date: 06/10/02
Case Number: 00-1406
Summary: The Americans with Disabilities Act does not preclude an EEOC regulation which allows an employer's defense that a worker's disability on the job would present a direct threat to his or her health.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law
Title: NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. v. MORGAN
Date: 06/10/02
Case Number: 00-1614
Summary: A Title VII plaintiff must file his discriminatory or retaliatory employment claims within the appropriate 180- or 300- day period, but a hostile work environment charge is not time barred if all acts underlying the claim are part of the same unlawful practice, and at least one act falls within the filing period; equitable doctrines may toll or limit either period.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Health Law, Labor & Employment Law
Title: US AIRWAYS, INC. v. BARNETT
Date: 04/29/02
Case Number: 00-1250
Summary: In an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, an employer's showing that an employee's requested accommodation conflicts with its seniority rules is ordinarily sufficient to show, as a matter of law, that the "accommodation" is not "reasonable," however, the employee remains free to present evidence of special circumstances that makes a seniority rule exception reasonable in the particular case; here, because the district court took a different view, and neither party has had opportunity to seek summary judgment in accordance with principles announced in opinion, Court of Appeals' judgment vacated and case remanded for further proceedings.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Immigration Law, Labor & Employment Law
Title: HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. v. NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD.
Date: 03/27/02
Case Number: 00-1595
Summary: Federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the NLRB from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who has never been legally authorized to work in the United States but has been terminated from his US job in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law
Title: EDELMAN v. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE
Date: 03/19/02
Case Number: 00-1072
Summary: The EEOC's relation-back regulation is an unassailable interpretation of section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Labor & Employment Law
Title: RAGSDALE v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC.
Date: 03/19/02
Case Number: 00-6029
Summary: 29 CFR 825.700(a), a Labor Department regulation, is contrary to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and beyond the Secretary of Labor's authority.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Topic: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law
Title: RAYGOR v. REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF MINNESOTA
Date: 02/27/02
Case Number: 00-1514
Summary: The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1367, will not toll the statute of limitations for state law claims made against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

Next 10 cases 

FindLaw Career Center

    Search for Law Jobs:

      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
Ads by FindLaw