Employment Cases Dominate Supreme Court Docket

Originally appeared in Labor Law Newsletter - January 2002

The U.S. Supreme Court began its 2001-2002 term with an unusually high number of employment cases on its docket, and it is likely that more will be added during the term. Fourteen cases have been accepted for review, including:

FMLA. Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. is the first FMLA case to reach the high court. It involves the issue of whether an employee not told that her time off would count as FMLA leave is entitled to additional leave. Ragsdale was given seven months’ medical leave for cancer treatment but not told by her employer that the leave would count toward her 12-week FMLA entitlement. After her leave expired, she requested FMLA leave. Her employer told her that she had used all FMLA leave. Ragsdale sued under a DOL regulation providing that leave does not count against an employee’s FMLA entitlement if the time off is not designated by the employer as FMLA time. The lower court invalidated the regulation because it gives an employee more time than the statute requires. On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed, siding with the Eleventh Circuit, which had earlier reached the same result. Other courts have upheld the regulation, causing a split of authority that the Supreme Court will resolve.

NLRA. In Hoffman Plastic Compound, Inc. v. NLRB, the NLRB reinstated an employee fired for engaging in pro-union activity. During a compliance hearing over the computation of back pay, the employee disclosed that he was an undocumented alien. The Board dropped reinstatement as a remedy but ordered that back pay be paid to the date the parties learned the employee was undocumented. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals en-forced the Board’s order in a 5-4 decision. The court rejected the employer’s argument that an individual must be considered unavailable for work (and therefore not entitled to back pay) during any period when he is not lawfully present and employed in the United States.

ADA. Williams v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc., raises the question of how restrictive a disability must be on an employee’s ability to work to render the employee "disabled" under the ADA. The Sixth Circuit found that an employee was disabled because her limb, shoulder and neck impairments substantially limited her ability to per-form the range of tasks associated with her assembly-line job.

ERISA. In Moran v. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc., a medical benefit plan participant sued Rush under the Illinois HMO Act after it had denied her claim for surgery reimbursement because the procedure was not deemed medically necessary. Rush argued that Moran’s state law action was a claim for benefits preempted by ERISA. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to Rush because it had not abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily in denying the claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed on the ground that the state law fell within a savings clause in ERISA excepting from preemption laws that regulate insurance.

EEOC. EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., involves the extent to which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in bringing a suit in its own name, is bound by a private arbitration agreement between the charging party and his employer. The EEOC action was brought under the ADA seeking relief on behalf of an employee who had signed an employment application with a provision requiring him to submit to binding arbitration any claim concerning his employment. The Fourth Circuit concluded that although the EEOC could not be compelled to arbitrate its claims, it could seek injunctive relief against the employer.