Supreme Court Issues Four Employment Law Opinions
It was a day chock-full of employment law for the Supreme Court, as it issued four decisions impacting employers. Here are the highlights.
In MetLife v. Glenn, the Supremes ruled that the administrator of an ERISA plan has a conflict of interest if it performs the dual role of evaluating claims and paying them. What does this mean for employers? If your administrator performs both roles, there is now a much greater risk of having benefit determinations overturned.
In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the Court ruled that it is the employer’s burden in an ADEA disparate impact suit to prove that the employment decision was made on “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA). Previously, it was unclear whether the employer or employee bore the RFOA burden of proof. The Court also rejected a “business necessity” defense under the ADEA. What does this mean for employers? Employers now have a potentially greater uphill battle in disproving disparate impact age discrimination claims.
In Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, the Court ruled that a benefit plan’s use of age as a factor in distributing retirement benefits to disabled employees does not constitute a prima facie case of age discrimination. What does this mean for employers? Even with this ruling, employers should refrain from applying age as a factor arbitrarily or discriminatorily in pension decisions.
In Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, the Court ruled that federal labor law prohibits states from regulating an employer’s right to speak out about union organizing by its employees. What does this mean for employers? If you’re in a state (like California) that has such a law, it is now subject to challenge on federal preemption grounds.
Stay tuned for more.
(Source: scotusblog.com)
