On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. This case concerned whether time employees spend undergoing mandatory security screenings after work is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, which clarifies that certain activities are generally not compensable working time under the FLSA.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that the time that employees spent waiting to undergo (and undergoing) security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Kagan joined. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed.
To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is the Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.
On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation. The question presented in the case is twofold: (1) whether a state violates the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act) by “discriminating against a rail carrier” when it requires rail carriers to pay a sales-and-use tax but exempts railroads’ competitors from paying the same tax; and (2) whether, in resolving a claim of unlawful tax discrimination under the 4-R Act, a court should consider the state's broader tax system rather than focusing only on the challenged tax provision.
To discuss the case, we have Andy Grewal, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law.
On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gelboim v. Bank of America Corporation. This case concerns whether and in what circumstances the dismissal of all claims in one civil action that has been consolidated with other cases for pre-trial purposes through Multi-District Litigation, is final and immediately appealable?
To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an Olin-Searle-Smith Fellow and Constitutional Law Center Fellow at Stanford Law School.
On December 3, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service. This case concerns whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to employees who are not pregnant but have work limitations, to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who share similar abilities and limitations.
To discuss the case, we have Teresa Collett, who is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.
On December 10, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two related cases: United States v. Wong and United States v. June.
In United States v. Wong the question is whether the six-month time bar for filing suit in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling. In U.S. v. June, the question is whether the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling.
To discuss the case, we have Prof. Paul Figley, who is the Associate Director of the Legal Writing and Rhetoric Program at the American University Washington College of Law.