Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Labor & Employment Law : From 10/01/03 To 07/01/04
Number of summaries found: 6
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE v. SUDERS |
| Date: | 06/14/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-95 |
| Summary: | To establish "constructive discharge," plaintiff must prove a work environment so hostile as to merit resignation as a fitting response. Defendants may assert affirmative defenses in a case alleging constructive discharge, unless plaintiff quit in response to an official change in her employment status. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | ERISA, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | CENT. LABORERS' PENSION FUND v. HEINZ |
| Date: | 06/07/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-891 |
| Summary: | ERISA Section 204(g) prohibits a pension plan amendment that expands the definition of postretirement employment that would trigger the suspension of early retirement benefits already accrued. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | JONES v. R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. |
| Date: | 05/03/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1205 |
| Summary: | A cause of action "arises under an Act of Congress enacted" after December 1, 1990 - and therefore is governed by 28 U.S.C. section 1658's four-year statute of limitations - if the claim was made possible by a post-1990 enactment. Because petitioners' causes of action arose under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, they are not time-barred. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Bankruptcy Law, ERISA, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARING PLAN v. HENDON |
| Date: | 03/02/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-458 |
| Summary: | The working owner of a business may qualify as a "participant" in a pension plan covered by ERISA. If the plan covers one or more employees other than the business owner and his or her spouse, the working owner may participate on equal terms with other plan participants; such a working owner qualifies for the protections ERISA affords plan participants and is governed by the rights and remedies ERISA specifies. Remanded with instructions regarding issue of loan repayments. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | GEN. DYNAMICS LAND SYS., INC. v. CLINE |
| Date: | 02/24/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1080 |
| Summary: | The ADEA's text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statutes show that the statute does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one. Thus, it does not protect plaintiffs-employees, all between 40 and 50 years old, who were denied health benefits under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | RAYTHEON CO. v. HERNANDEZ |
| Date: | 12/02/03 |
| Case Number: | 02–749 |
| Summary: | The Ninth Circuit improperly applied a disparate-impact analysis to plaintiff's disparate-treatment claim and improperly focused on factors that pertain only to disparate-impact claims, and thus ignored the fact that defendant's no-hire policy is a quintessential legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire an employee who was terminated for violating workplace conduct rules. |