MENU

Labor & Employment Law

King v. Burwell: What are the consequences?

Short video debate with Michael Cannon and Robert Weiner
Michael Cannon, Robert N. Weiner June 22, 2015

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Robert N. Weiner, Partner at Arnold & Porter debate the potential consequences of the Court’s ruling concerning whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

King v. Burwell: What is in dispute?

Short video debate with Michael Cannon and Robert Weiner
Michael Cannon, Robert N. Weiner June 22, 2015

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Robert N. Weiner, Partner at Arnold & Porter debate whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 6-16-15 featuring Michael Rosman
Michael E. Rosman June 16, 2015

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc, decided on June 1, involves Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a prospective employer from (among other things) refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship.  The question here is whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation. The Tenth Circuit had ruled in favor of Abercrombie, concluding that an employer could not be held liable until an applicant (or employee) provided the employer with actual knowledge of her need for an accommodation.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tenth Circuit by a vote of 8-1 and remanded the case for further proceedings.  A request for accommodation, or the employer’s certainty that the practice at issue exists, the Court explained, may make it easier to infer the requisite motive, but it is not a necessary condition of liability under Title VII.

The Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined Justice Scalia’s majority opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

To discuss the case, we have Michael Rosman, who is General Counsel at the Center for Individual Rights.

Religious Accommodation in the Workplace: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores - Podcast

Labor & Employment Law and Religious Liberties Practice Groups Podcast
Michael E. Rosman June 04, 2015

When is an employer liable or not liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice?”  We discussed the case decided on June 1, 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court.on this Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call.

  • Michael E. Rosman, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights

City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-27-2015 featuring Tom Gede
Thomas F. Gede May 27, 2015

On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan. This case asks two questions. The first is whether law enforcement officers are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate a mentally ill suspect who is armed and hostile while they are bringing the suspect into custody. The second question is whether it was clearly established that even where an exception to the warrant requirement applied, an entry into a residence could be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment by reason of the anticipated resistance of an armed and violent suspect within.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, by a vote of 6-2, the Court dismissed the grant of certiorari on the first question as improvidently granted.  On the second question, the Court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because they did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.  The Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined Justice Alito's majority opinion.  Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Kagan.  Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.  The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed in part and the case remanded.

To discuss the case, we have Tom Gede, who is a principal in Morgan Lewis Consulting LLC and of counsel to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.