United States: Will SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch Treat Employers Well? The Magic 8-Ball Says: "Signs Point To Yes"

Late yesterday, President Trump selected Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) bench. Assuming he is confirmed by the Senate, Justice Gorsuch would occupy a critical position on the Court, assumedly aligning with the more conservative bloc of justices to form a slim majority in tight cases. The question on the mind of employers: how would Justice Gorsuch treat workplace law cases that come before the Supreme Court? To answer that question, we once again turn to the Magic 8-Ball.

We first used the Magic 8-Ball in 2006, examining the future of the Court when Justice Samuel Alito was appointed, and did the same for Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Justice Elena Kagan in 2010. We now ask the same question of the Magic 8-Ball that we asked of previous appointees: if confirmed, will Justice Gorsuch be kind to employers? The answer: "Signs point to yes."

Will Judge Gorsuch Be Confirmed By The Senate?

"Reply Hazy – Try Again"

Before we examine the impact that Judge Gorsuch would have on the SCOTUS, we need to examine whether he will even make it to the bench. That's because, as opposed to the three previous nominees who sailed through the confirmation process with little controversy, a sizable number of Senate Democrats already appear ready to use this nomination as a staging ground to express opposition to President Trump and the Senate Republicans. Not only has Democratic leadership been opposed to many of the president's actions during his first days in office, but many on the left are still upset that Senate Republicans blocked President Obama from filling the ninth seat on the bench with Judge Merrick Garland.

Current Senate filibuster rules would require 60 votes to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court, which would mean Judge Gorsuch would need to garner at least eight votes from Democrats or Independents to earn the seat (assuming, of course, that all 52 Republican senators vote in unanimous lockstep). However, the majority party could invoke the "nuclear option" by suspending current Senate procedural rules to eliminate the filibuster and permit a simple majority vote to carry the day. That would all but assure Judge Gorsuch of being confirmed, but could have long-term implications on Senate relations and future SCOTUS nominations.

If all goes smoothly, it appears the Senate will hold confirmation hearings for Judge Gorsuch in late March or early April, with a full Senate vote expected immediately thereafter. The procedural issues may not be sorted out until then, so the question of whether he will actually be confirmed may not be determined for several months.

Should Judge Gorsuch's Background Give Employers Hope?

"It Is Decidedly So"

From the big-picture perspective, employers should be pleased with the president's selection. Some have described Judge Gorsuch as very similar to the late Justice Scalia when it comes to judicial philosophy. In fact, a recent study cited by the Washington Post found Judge Gorsuch to merit the highest scores when determining which possible nominee was "the most Scalia-like."

Judge Gorsuch graduated from Columbia University in 1988 and Harvard Law School in 1991. He then clerked for Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy before joining a Washington, D.C. firm for about 10 years. He briefly worked for President George W. Bush's Department of Justice as a deputy to the Assistant Attorney General before being appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. He has been a judge on that court for the past decade and has participated in hundreds of decisions, including quite a few labor and employment cases. It is this background that should comfort employers as workplace law conflicts are brought before the Supreme Court in the future.

For example, in the 2012 case of Kaiser v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, Judge Gorsuch upheld the dismissal of a religious discrimination claim brought by a disgruntled former employee who believed his employer should have retained him. Judge Gorsuch wrote, "it is not our function under the federal discrimination laws to tell employers how best to go about their jobs ... maybe others would have gone about the job differently than [the terminating supervisor] did," but that was not for the court to decide. And in 2006's Young v. Dillon Companies, Inc., Judge Gorsuch upheld the dismissal of a race discrimination claim by concluding "our role is to prevent intentional discriminatory hiring practices, not to act as a 'super personnel department,' second guessing employers' honestly held (even if erroneous) business judgments."

Will Judge Gorsuch's Down-To-Earth Style Aid Employers?

"You May Rely On It"

Despite Judge Gorsuch's sterling educational background and impressive work history, it is common to hear those close to him describe him as "down to earth" and a "regular guy." His commonsense approach shines through in his legal decisions, often to the benefit of employers. In at least four instances, it would have been easy for Judge Gorsuch to rule in favor of an employee given the initial review of the case facts. But it is his ability to apply sound and reasonable logic to these matters that separates him from most other jurists.

  • In Roberts v. International Business Machines Corp. (2013), an age-discrimination plaintiff thought he had a slam-dunk case after finding instant messages between supervisors questioning his "shelf life" immediately prior to termination. But Judge Gorsuch investigated further and concluded that, when viewed in context of other communications, the IM conversation "was nothing worse than an inartful reference" to the worker's productive work drying up. The case was dismissed.
  • In the 2011 case of Gorny v. Alvarez, a plaintiff tried building a retaliation claim with evidence that her supervisor said he "did not trust her" after she filed an EEO complaint. Judge Gorsuch rejected this notion. He said the supervisor "may have distrusted Ms. Gorny for any number of perfectly benign (for Title VII purposes) reasons; his statement does not establish, directly, that he wished to retaliate against her."
  • The 2007 case of Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc. involved a group of plaintiffs challenging a hospital's English-only rule through a hostile environment claim. It was the first time the 10th Circuit was confronted with such a company policy narrowly tailored to only require English at specific times and places. Judge Gorsuch found that the employer's rule was necessitated by business reasons and essential to operations, dismissing the claim and creating a new standard for the circuit.
  • McKissick v. Yuen (2010) involved a disgruntled executive who argued that a severance agreement should not prevent her from proceeding with a fraud claim against her former employer because of grossly inadequate compensation and alleged coercion. But Judge Gorsuch rejected her claim, pointing out that she entered an arm's length transaction and couldn't back out of it just because she later changed her mind.

Will Judge Gorsuch Always Rule For Employers On Gender-Related Claims?

"Don't Count On It"

But just because Judge Gorsuch has a general reputation for siding with employers doesn't mean he will always give them a free pass. When it comes to gender-related claims, he has demonstrated the ability to render rulings for both employers and employees.

In Gaff v. St. Mary's Regional Medical Center (2012), Judge Gorsuch affirmed the dismissal of a sexual harassment claim brought after a coworker engaged in "boorish and immature conduct," ruling that the actions were neither severe nor pervasive. And in Ferguson v. Shinkesi (2013), he upheld the dismissal of a gender discrimination claim, ruling that sexually crude comments made by coworkers were in no way connected to the plaintiff's termination.

But in the 2008 decision of Orr v. City of Albuquerque, Judge Gorsuch revived a pregnancy discrimination claim brought by two female workers that had been dismissed by the lower court. He determined sufficient evidence existed to support the plaintiffs' allegations that they were mistreated in the way they were forced to take maternity leave. Despite the employer's arguments that it was simply applying its sick leave policy in a uniform manner, and that any harm done to plaintiffs was the result of a good faith error and not intentional discrimination, Judge Gorsuch found that "plaintiffs have presented evidence undermining both of defendant's explanations."

Will Judge Gorsuch Consistently Rule For Employers In Retaliation Cases?

"My Sources Say No"

One of the most common legal problems employers can face is a retaliation claim, and Judge Gorsuch is no stranger to cases involving this cause of action. Although he has ruled in employers' favor at times, he is not shy about upholding the rights of employees to proceed with retaliation lawsuits.

For example, he ruled that a seven-week gap between protected activity and an adverse action did not create sufficient temporal proximity sufficient to support a retaliation claim on its own in Bergersen v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. (2007). He ruled that an employer's "good business practices" in deciding to implement a reduction-in-force to rid the company of a poorly performing unit negated a worker's retaliation claim in Hinds v. Sprint/United Management Co. (2008). And in Weeks v. Kansas (2012), he upheld a narrow interpretation of "protected activity" and denied a terminated worker's ability to even proceed with a retaliation claim.

But in Barrett v. Salt Lake County (2014) and Walton v. Powell (2016), he upheld the rights of workers to proceed with retaliation claims, affirming lower court decisions in their favor. And in Williams v. W.D. Sports N.M., Inc. (2007), he overturned a lower court's decision that had dismissed a lawsuit, instead allowing a worker to proceed to trial on her retaliation claim. He applied a new Supreme Court standard establishing an expansive reading of Title VII's retaliation provision and breathed new life into the claim, demonstrating that he reviews each retaliation case with an open mind.

Will Judge Gorsuch Support Workplace Safety?

"As I See It, Yes"

In several instances, Judge Gorsuch has been faced with a case involving an employer that took action in the name of workplace safety, and in each case he ruled in favor of that employer. In the 2013 case of Keeler v. ARAMARK, he upheld the dismissal of a worker fired for threatening to "start a riot" after not being named employee of the month, rejecting his retaliation claim. In the Gaff v. St. Mary's case discussed above, he rejected a retaliation claim and upheld the plaintiff's termination for telling a coworker that she "owned a gun and knew how to use it." And in Buck v. CF & I Steel, L.P. (2013), he rejected a claim brought by a worker who was terminated for testing positive for drugs in an industrial environment. The opening line in Judge Gorsuch's opinion tells you all you need to know about the case: "At his employer's insistence, Carl Buck submitted to a randomized drug test, and the results weren't good."

How Will Judge Gorsuch Handle ADA Claims?

"Cannot Predict Now"

Judge Gorsuch has not had many opportunities to rule on cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so it is difficult to predict how he would rule should such a case land before him at the Supreme Court. Although he upheld the dismissal of a plaintiff's ADA discrimination case in 2010's Johnson v. Weld County, that decision predated the amendments to the ADA and no longer stands as solid law. He did dismiss a plaintiff's ADA case in the 2014 Myers v. Knight Protective Service, Inc. decision, ruling that the worker's statements made during a Social Security Disability Insurance proceeding precluded him from proving he was a qualified worker. However, because he has not built a more detailed track record in this area of the law, it is not easy to determine how he might rule in the future.

Will Judge Gorsuch Support Employers' Religious Freedom?

"Without A Doubt"

It seems likely that the Trump administration looked to Judge Gorsuch's record on religious freedom when it came time to make a final selection, and it seems equally likely that this record will be attacked by Senate Democrats during the confirmation process. What seems certain is that Judge Gorsuch is not afraid to take what many might consider a controversial position in this debate.

Perhaps his most notable opinion came in the 2013 case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, where he ruled that the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate could not be forced upon those employers with religious objections. As he stated in that decision, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, "Congress structured the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to override other legal mandates, including its own statutes, if and when they encroach on religious liberty." And in 2015's Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, he defended the rights of an order of Catholic nuns not to be required to fund contraceptive coverage in the healthcare plans offered to the employees at their care facilities, arguing: "When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person's free exercise of religion."

Will Judge Gorsuch Be An Enemy Of The NLRB?

"Outlook Not So Good"

Although Judge Gorsuch is largely employer friendly and is skeptical of the power of administrative agencies, it is interesting to note that he has consistently upheld decisions issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Some of these decisions have aided unions and some have aided employers, so this pattern does not necessarily reveal any anti-employer (or anti-union) animus.

For example, in the 2010 decision of Laborers' Intern. Union of North America, Local 578 v. NLRB, Judge Gorsuch agreed with the NLRB that the union committed unfair labor practices when it persuaded an employer to terminate a worker for failing to pay his union dues. In 2012's Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. NLRB, he sided with the NLRB and concluded that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by not timely producing requested information to the union during a grievance proceeding. And in 2014, he issued a decision in Teamsters Local Union No. 455 v. NLRB, again lining up with the Board – this time denying a union's request to hold an employer's lockout unlawful after the company threatened to hire permanent replacement workers.

Will Judge Gorsuch Side With Benefits Plan Administrators?

"It Is Certain"

Another area of the law where Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated a consistent judicial philosophy is the administration of benefits plans. In at least four cases – Niedens v. Continental Cas. Co. (2007), Lucas v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston (2011), McClenahan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2011), and Jensen v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc. (2013) – Judge Gorsuch has concluded that an administrator's decision to terminate an individual's benefits was supported by the evidence and not an abuse of discretion. In fact, in the most recent case, he came to this conclusion despite evidence in the record showing that the plan administrator unintentionally failed to comply with technical ERISA notice requirements.

Will Judge Gorsuch Tangle With Regulatory Agencies?

"Yes, Definitely"

Perhaps the single-most defining characteristic that led President Trump to select Judge Gorsuch as his SCOTUS nominee is the judge's avowed hostility towards regulations. The president campaigned on a platform that promised to rid the country of burdensome regulations, and Judge Gorsuch will certainly aid in that effort. He has made a name for himself as someone who is no fan of the powers of regulatory agencies.

The defining case that may very well have sealed Judge Gorsuch's selection is the August 2016 decision in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, a non-employment immigration case against the federal government. In a concurring opinion rejecting the application of a government regulation, Judge Gorsuch mercilessly attacked the existing Supreme Court standard that often affords a great deal of deference to federal regulations. "There's an elephant in the room with us today," he wrote. This Supreme Court standard "permits executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth." He called for a revolution, of sorts, where courts exercise their independent judgment and fulfill their duties to interpret the law, while regulatory agencies cease filling legislative voids.

This judicial philosophy could be a great asset to employers, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and numerous other federal agencies have created a thicket of regulatory law through which employers must navigate on a daily basis. This is not a revolution that will happen overnight, however. For it to take hold, it will need other likeminded Supreme Court justices, and it will take time.

If there's one thing Judge Gorsuch has, however, it's time. The Magic 8-Ball's answer to our final question will explain why.

If Confirmed, Will Judge Gorsuch Have A Lasting Impact?

"The Answer Is Yes"

One of Judge Gorsuch's greatest assets is his youth – he is only 49 years old, seven years younger than each of the current most youthful justice (Justice Elena Kagan), and about 30 years younger than the three oldest justices (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Anthony Kennedy). If confirmed, he could easily enjoy between 20 to 30 years on the bench of our nation's highest court, and take part in hundreds of cases that shape our workplace laws.

It is impossible to predict whether his personal philosophy will carry weight on the Supreme Court, as we have no way of knowing the composition of the full Court in the future. Even the Magic 8-Ball can't determine whether he will regularly sit beside a bloc of willing allies or a group of justices who take opposing views in the years to come. Regardless whether Judge Gorsuch becomes an influential force or simply a solid contributor, employers can feel confident that he will more often than not side with them when it comes to workplace issues that land at the Supreme Court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Adam Bridgers
Richard R. Meneghello
Ashton M. Riley
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.