U.S. 2024年雇主关注的最高法院案件

In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide several cases—it has already decided one case—that may have a significant impact on employers. It is important that employers are aware of the issues presented in these cases and the potential implications the Supreme Court’s decisions could have on the workplace. 具体而言，最高法院已经处理或将处理:

• 第七条歧视: The Court will decide whether a forced job transfer may constitute illegal discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
• 法院对联邦机构的服从法院将决定是否推翻或修改 Chevron deference, 一种要求法院在解释模棱两可的法律时遵从联邦机构规则的原则.
• 告密者的报复: The Court has issued an opinion establishing that employees do not need to prove retaliatory intent under the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).

Action Steps

Employers should monitor for updates on the Supreme Court decisions regarding 第七条歧视 and Chevron deference and familiarize themselves with the potential outcomes and implications with respect to each case. Publicly traded employers should also familiarize themselves with the Supreme Court’s standard of proof for whistleblower retaliation claims and take proactive steps to mitigate the risk of retaliation.

最高法院未决判决

第七章歧视性转移——莫德罗诉. City of St. Louis

Legal Question

On Dec. 2023年6月6日，最高法院听取了口头辩论 Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a case in which the Supreme Court will decide whether Title VII prohibits discrimination in job transfer decisions even when the employee is not materially harmed by the transfer.

Case Summary

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, 或者在薪酬方面歧视任何个人, terms, 以种族为基础的雇佣条件或特权, color, religion, sex, 或国家来源(称为受保护特征). Currently, the circuit courts disagree on whether a forced job transfer may be unlawful discrimination even if the transfer does not significantly disadvantage the employee (e.g.，不会导致薪酬降低或失去专业机会)。.  

In Muldrow原告是一名女性圣. 路易斯警察局警官. 在同一个岗位上工作多年之后, 她被迫调到另一个部门，但保留了同样的薪酬和头衔. 在她调职后，她的雇主在她之前的职位上安排了一名男性警官. 虽然她的调职并没有导致她的工资或级别的任何变化, 原告声称，由于她的性别，她在工作调动中受到了歧视. 下级法院判被告胜诉, stating that the plaintiff’s transfer did not violate Title VII because the plaintiff did not suffer any material employment disadvantage.

对雇主的潜在影响

A ruling in the plaintiff’s favor would resolve the circuit split and expand the scope of actionable claims under Title VII by prohibiting any job transfer decision based on an employee’s protected characteristic. 雇主在强制调动员工时可能会考虑更加谨慎, 包括横向工作调动, 确保这些决定不具有歧视性. For example, employers could consider revising existing transfer policies to ensure any decisions are based on objective, 非歧视性标准，并有适当的文件记录. 

Notably, while the plaintiff argues that any personnel decision based on an employee’s protected characteristic is discriminatory, 最高法院将此案的范围限制在工作调动上. 因此，最高法院的决定不太可能影响其他雇佣诉讼. 

Chevron Deference—Loper Bright Enterprises v .. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. 商务部

Legal Question

On Jan. 2024年7月17日，最高法院听取了两起案件的口头辩论， Loper Bright Enterprises v .. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. 商务部. 最高法院将决定是否推翻或缩小1984年判决的范围 Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council Inc., which held that courts should defer to federal agencies to interpret ambiguities and gaps in the laws that the agencies implement (known as Chevron deference).

Case Summary 国会有权通过管理雇主的法律, 联邦机构有权执行这些法律. 填补任何空白或纠正任何歧义, federal agencies may issue more detailed guidance on how the laws should be interpreted and applied. 例如，各机构可能会发布非正式指导、发布意见或发布正式规定. 在 Chevron deference, courts are directed to defer to such agency guidance where (1) the statute is ambiguous and (2) the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

In Loper and Relentless，原告辩称 Chevron 应该被否决. The plaintiffs contend that courts should have the authority to interpret ambiguous laws and should have no obligation to adhere to federal agency guidance. 如果最高法院不推翻 Chevron，原告辩称，持有 Chevron 应该修改为澄清没有歧义，因此，没有 Chevron deference, where a statute is silent as to authorizing a controversial power that is expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statutory scheme.

对雇主的潜在影响

对任何一方有利的裁决都不太可能对个别雇主产生直接影响. However, Chevron deference has a meaningful influence on the interpretation and enforcement of labor and employment laws. 联邦职业介绍所, 包括平等就业机会委员会, 职业健康与安全管理局(OSHA), the U.S. 美国劳工部(DOL)和国家劳资关系委员会(NLRB)所依赖的 Chevron 对发布和辩护机构解释的遵从. 如果最高法院驳回 Chevron，联邦机构将无法依赖 Chevron 对现有诉讼的服从, including lawsuits that have been filed to challenge the DOL’s independent contractor rule and the NLRB’s joint-employer rule, 并可能面临对现有规则的额外法律挑战. Federal agencies may also issue fewer regulations and take more moderate positions in the regulations they issue. 

最高法院最终判决

举报人报复-默里诉. 瑞银证券有限责任公司

Holding

On Feb. 2024年8月8日，最高法院一致裁定 Murray v. 瑞银证券有限责任公司 that whistleblower employees do not need to prove that their employer acted with retaliatory intent to be protected under the federal whistleblower protections of the SOX.

Case Summary

SOX法案禁止上市公司进行排污, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing or otherwise discriminating against employees in retaliation for reporting fraud or violations of federal securities laws and regulations (i.e.(从事受保护活动).

In Murray, the plaintiff alleged that his former employer violated SOX by terminating his employment after he raised concerns about potentially unethical and illegal activity. 第二巡回法院做出了有利于雇主的裁决, holding that an employee must prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent to prove a whistleblower claim. 第二巡回法院的判决偏离了其他巡回法院的判决, 谁认为不需要报复意图的证据.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the 2nd Circuit decision and resolved the circuit split by establishing that a plaintiff only needs to prove that the whistleblowing activity was a “contributing factor” in the unfavorable personnel decision but does not need to prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. 如果员工可以这样做的话, the employer must demonstrate that it would have taken the same action if the employee had not engaged in whistleblowing activity. 

This Compliance Bulletin is not intended to be exhaustive nor should any discussion or opinions be construed as legal advice. 读者应向法律顾问咨询法律意见. ©2024 Zywave, Inc. 版权所有.