U.S. Supreme Court Cases for Employers to Watch in 2024

In 2024, the U.S. 最高法院将对几个可能对雇主产生重大影响的案件做出判决——它已经判决了一个案件. 重要的是，雇主要意识到这些案件中提出的问题，以及最高法院的裁决可能对工作场所产生的潜在影响. Specifically, the Supreme Court has addressed or will address:

• Title VII discrimination根据1964年《美高美集团4688》第七章，法院将决定强迫工作转移是否构成非法歧视。.
• Court deference to federal agencies: The Court will decide whether to overturn or modify Chevron deference, a doctrine that requires courts to defer to federal agency rules when interpreting ambiguous laws.
• Whistleblower retaliation当前位置法院发表了一项意见，确定雇员不需要证明在《梅高美集团4858》(SOX)的举报人保护下的报复意图。.

Action Steps

雇主应该关注最高法院美高美集团4688第七章歧视和 Chevron 尊重并熟悉每个案例的潜在结果和影响. 公开交易的雇主也应该熟悉最高法院对举报人报复索赔的举证标准，并采取积极措施减轻报复的风险.

Pending SCOTUS Decisions

Title VII Discriminatory Transfers—Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Legal Question

On Dec. 6, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 在这个案件中，最高法院将决定第七章是否禁止在工作转移决定中歧视，即使雇员没有受到转移的实质性伤害.

Case Summary

第七章规定，雇主“未能或拒绝雇用或解雇任何个人”是非法的, or otherwise discriminate against any individual” with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment” on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (referred to as protected characteristics). Currently, 巡回法院在强制工作调动是否可能构成非法歧视的问题上存在分歧，即使这种调动不会对雇员造成重大不利(e).g., does not result in lower compensation or a loss of professional opportunities).  

In Muldrow, the plaintiff is a female St. Louis Police Department officer. After working for years in the same position, she was forced to transfer to a different division but retained the same compensation and title. Following her transfer, her employer placed a male officer in her prior position. Although her transfer did not result in any change to her pay or rank, the plaintiff alleges that she was subject to a discriminatory job transfer because of her gender. The lower courts held in favor of the defendant, 声明原告的转移没有违反第七章，因为原告没有遭受任何实质性的就业不利.

Potential Employer Impact

对原告有利的裁决将解决巡回法庭的分歧，并根据第七章禁止任何基于雇员受保护特征的工作调动决定，从而扩大可诉索赔的范围. Employers may consider taking greater care when mandating employee transfers, including lateral job transfers, to ensure that such decisions are not discriminatory. For example, 雇主可以考虑修改现有的调动政策，以确保任何决定都是基于客观的, nondiscriminatory criteria and that such criteria are appropriately documented. 

Notably, 而原告辩称，任何基于雇员受保护特征的人事决定都是歧视性的, the Supreme Court has limited the scope of the case to job transfers. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision is unlikely to affect other employment actions. 

Chevron Deference—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce

Legal Question

On Jan. 17, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The Supreme Court will decide whether to overturn or narrow the scope of its 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council Inc., 他们认为法院应该服从联邦机构来解释这些机构执行的法律中的歧义和漏洞(被称为 Chevron deference).

Case Summary Congress has the authority to pass laws that govern employers, and federal agencies have the authority to enforce those laws. To fill in any gaps or to remedy any ambiguities, 联邦机构可能会就如何解释和适用这些法律发布更详细的指导意见. For example, agencies may publish informal guidance, issue opinions or publish formal regulations. Under the doctrine of Chevron deference, 在下列情况下，法院应遵循行政机关的指导:(1)法规含糊不清，(2)行政机关的解释合理.

In Loper and Relentless, the plaintiffs argue that Chevron should be overruled. 原告认为，法院应该有权解释模棱两可的法律，没有义务遵守联邦机构的指导. If the Supreme Court does not choose to overturn Chevron, the plaintiffs alternatively argue that the holding in Chevron should be modified to clarify that there is no ambiguity and, therefore, no Chevron deference, 如果成文法没有提及授权一项有争议的权力，而该权力在成文法架构的其他地方是明确但狭隘地授予的.

Potential Employer Impact

A ruling in either party’s favor is unlikely to have an immediate impact on individual employers. However, Chevron 尊重对劳动和就业法的解释和执行具有重要影响. Federal employment agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have relied on Chevron deference in issuing and defending agency interpretations. If the Supreme Court overrules Chevron, federal agencies will not be able to rely on Chevron deference in existing litigation, 包括挑战劳工部独立承包商规则和国家劳资关系委员会共同雇主规则的诉讼, and may be subject to additional legal challenges to existing rules. 联邦机构也可能发布更少的法规，并在其发布的法规中采取更温和的立场. 

Final SCOTUS Decision

Whistleblower Retaliation—Murray v. UBS Securities LLC

Holding

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC 举报人雇员不需要证明其雇主的行为带有报复意图，就能受到《梅高美集团4858》对联邦举报人的保护.

Case Summary

SOX prohibits publicly traded companies from discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, 骚扰或以其他方式歧视员工，以报复举报欺诈或违反联邦证券法律法规的行为.e., engaging in protected activity).

In Murray, 原告声称，他的前雇主在他提出对潜在不道德和非法活动的担忧后，终止了他的雇佣，违反了SOX. The 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of the employer, 认为雇员必须证明雇主的行为带有报复意图才能证明举报人的主张. The 2nd Circuit decision deviated from holdings in other circuits, which have held that evidence of retaliatory intent is not required.

On appeal, 最高法院推翻了第二巡回法院的判决，并通过确定原告只需要证明举报活动是不利人事决定的“促成因素”，而不需要证明雇主的行为具有报复意图，解决了巡回法院的分歧. If the employee may make that showing, 雇主必须证明，如果雇员没有从事举报活动，雇主也会采取同样的行动. 

本合规公告并非详尽无遗，任何讨论或意见也不应被视为法律建议. Readers should contact legal counsel for legal advice. ©2024 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved.