The Supreme Court’s fall season has implications for staffing firms and other employers
The current session of the U.S. Supreme Court promises to impact staffing industry companies and our clients. Lurking in the shadows of recent headline cases, like the Hobby Lobby and Noel Canning decisions, are others that will affect private sector employers on the topics of same-sex marriage, wage and hour, and pregnancy accommodations.
Same-Sex Marriage
A little over a year after the Supreme Court set off a wave of lower court decisions striking down state bans on same-sex marriage, the legal contest over the constitutionality of those laws is battling back at the nation’s highest court. Utah state officials requested the Supreme Court to uphold Utah’s state ban, which was struck down by a federal court. The case, Herbert v. Kitchen, raises a single constitutional question: “Whether the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from defining or recognizing marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman.”
And Virginia asked the Supreme Court to review a case and argued the matter (Rainey v. Bostic) is an “excellent vehicle to resolve the controversy.” The case holds some symbolic significance in U.S. Supreme Court history — the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia state law in 1967 that banned marriage by couples of a different race.
Oklahoma also has a request in with the court (Smith v. Bishop).
The court is expected to receive more petitions on the issue, but it appears nearly certain one of the cases will be selected for review. For employers, areas that will be affected include insurance benefits, beneficiary designations, forms for benefit election, FMLA requests, bereavement leave policies, and many more.
Security Screening Pay
If your clients mandate any sort of security screening for employees entering and exiting their premises, you will want to keep your eyes open for a decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk, which is about whether time spent in mandatory security screenings is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
At issue is a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held, in contrast to decisions from the Second and Eleventh Circuits, employees must be paid for time spent waiting on security screens where mandated by the employer and for the employer’s benefit.
The U.S. Department of Labor surprised watchers by weighing in on this case when it took a rare employer-friendly position, urging the Supreme Court to hold that the time is not compensable. Oral arguments are scheduled for early October.
Reasonable Accommodations and Pregnancy
In Young v. United Parcel Service, at issue is whether and in what circumstances the Pregnancy Disability Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations (think: light duty position programs for employees with on-the-job injuries) to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.”
After the court agreed to hear the case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued related guidance, making it clear the EEOC believes employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees without complications. Keep in mind pregnant employees with complications require analysis under the ADA as a pregnancy coupled with complications may qualify as a “disability” under the ADA.
While the EEOC may very well have been publishing a part of its interpretation of the Pregnancy Disability Act, the EEOC may also be strategically hoping the Supreme Court will give great deference to the EEOC’s interpretation.
These cases are important for employers of all types to follow. And when the decisions are issued, whichever way they land, it’s important to reach out to legal counsel to review whether any adjustments are necessary in your policies and practices and how to handle your employees and clients.
