Supreme Court Adds Two Employment Cases Just Before Summer Recess

Author: David B. Weisenfeld, XpertHR Legal Editor

July 8, 2014

As the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2013-2014 term the justices agreed to hear two new cases directly affecting employers, including one involving the EEOC's enforcement efforts. Both cases will be heard during the Court's next term, which begins in October, with arguments likely before the end of the year.

Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

On June 30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a dispute involving the EEOC's statutory duty to try to resolve job discrimination charges before the agency sues an employer. The EEOC had filed suit in 2011 against Mach Mining, an Illinois mining company, for failing to hire qualified female job applicants.

Mach Mining countered by claiming the EEOC did not make a good-faith effort to negotiate a settlement before going to court. Accordingly, the employer argued that the discrimination case should be dismissed.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC must attempt conciliation with an employer before filing a complaint. But lower courts have differed as to what the agency needs to do to meet its duty in the conciliation process, setting the stage for this Supreme Court showdown.

In the present case, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the statutory directive to the EEOC to negotiate first does not create an affirmative defense for employers that have allegedly violated Title VII. The appeals court suggested that recognizing this "failure-to-conciliate" defense would give employers an avenue to avoid liability for illegal discrimination. However, other appellate courts have reached contrary results.

Young v. United Parcel Service

On July 1, the Supreme Court announced it will hear the pregnancy discrimination claims of a former United Parcel Service (UPS) employee who accuses the company of treating her accommodation request differently from those of non-pregnant employees.

The woman who brought the case was a part-time UPS driver who asked for temporary light-duty work during her pregnancy after a midwife advised her to avoid lifting more than 20 pounds. UPS denied the request.

Although the company provides temporary light-duty accommodations to three classes of drivers, it declined to provide an accommodation here because it found the driver could not perform the essential functions of the job. She had to take unpaid leave as a result. The driver claims that this refusal to accommodate her violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).

UPS prevailed in the lower courts, but the Supreme Court will weigh in this fall as to whether an employer who provides light-duty accommodations to non-pregnant workers must also do so for pregnant workers.

At last month's White House Summit on Working Families, President Obama called on Congress to pass legislation "without delay" to clarify that pregnant workers are guaranteed the same protections that exist for other workers who need temporary accommodations. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) would bar an employer from forcing a pregnant employee to use unpaid leave if she could work with a reasonable accommodation. However, passage of the PWFA this year is considered unlikely.