Introduction:  The 2010 Term of the Supreme Court of the United States put a spotlight on the significant – though oddly unheralded – role that employment law plays in our country’s economy and in our citizens’ daily lives. One of the nation’s keenest (and self-described “obsessive”) Court observers recently characterized this term as “straight-up dull.” Emily Bazelon, “Chamber of Pain,” The New York Times Magazine, p. 9 (August 7, 2011.) My own judgment, however, is that what the Justices did in the employment area was consequential, if not downright exciting.  Through a number of employment-related cases, a cohesive and assertive majority of the Court fashioned the law to fit its socio-economic (if not overtly political) view that the employment relationship ought to be deregulated.  In doing so, the Court continued to pursue what the Reagan revolution began and the Tea Party followers hope to complete.  But more about that later.  For Court observers of all political stripes, the 2010 Term’s smorgasbord of decisions provides a feast to be savored and debated for months to come.

The plaintiff, an employee at Saint-Gobain, complained verbally several times about the placement of the time clock at Saint-Gobain being unlawful.  The time clock was placed beyond the area where workers were required to dress in protective clothing thus they were not paid for the time they donned and doffed their protective work gear.  A lower court ruled in a related case that the placement of the time clock was indeed a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In this case, the Court considered the use of the phrase “filed any complaint” and whether it allowed for a complaint about a violation to be filed orally or if it strictly limited complaints to be filed in writing.  Justice Breyer thoroughly defined the word “file” and “filed” only to conclude that what really mattered was the spirit of the text.  Breyer found that the intended purpose of the FLSA was to protect employees many of which, at the time the law was written, were illiterate and incapable of filing complaints in writing.  The Court concluded that employees may file complaints orally if the complaint is “sufficiently clear and detailed [enough] for a reasonable employer to understand it.”  The Court, however, did not address an equally important issue about whether a complaint must be filed with a government agency, not simply an employer, to fall within the standards of the FLSA anti-retaliation provision.

This case is a partial win for employees, granting them further protection against employment discrimination under the FLSA.  (More coverage here.)

UPDATE: Jonathan Harkavy’s commentary on this case can be found here from his overview of the Supreme Court’s employment law decisions during their 2010 session.

Introduction: The 2009 Term of the Supreme Court of the United States illustrated in unmistakable fashion the central role that workplace regulation plays in the lives of our citizens. The Court’s determination of a broad range of employment-related issues maintained its focus on employment law that began several terms ago. Not only do this term’s decisions affect a variety of policies and rules applicable to workers, employers and benefit providers, but the Roberts Court’s unabashed interest in doctrinal development, revealed by a deeper look at its decisions, also is reshaping the employment relationship itself and altering how work-related disputes are to be resolved. 

For the first term in nearly a decade, the Court appears to be emerging from the shadow of the September 11, 2001 attack on our nation. To be sure, judicial fallout from the consequences of that assault, including construction of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and application of habeas corpus, is still noticeable, particularly in detainee disputes, but these cases no longer dominate center stage on the Court’s docket or capture headlines as they did in many of the past several terms. As a consequence, the Court has shown a renewed interest in doctrinal change generally, with a focus on employment law in particular. Most notably, this turn of events coincides with the coalescence of a reformist majority led by Chief Justice Roberts. As Adam Liptak’s recent review of the Roberts’ Court’s first five years points out, Justice Alito’s succession to Justice O’Connor’s seat has moved the Court rightward philosophically, making it (in Liptak’s words) the “most conservative” Court in recent history. The New York Times, July 25, 2010, pp. 1, 20-23. This term’s employment decisions do not contradict Liptak’s assessment. In sum, the spotlight on the employment relationship during the 2009 Term was manifest not only in the employment and labor cases themselves, but also in a variety of non-employment decisions that are likely to have a bearing on workers and employers alike. For employment lawyers, therefore, the 2009 Term was a revealing and consequential one, to say the least.

Patterson Harkavy’s 2010 North Carolina “Super Lawyers” are:

• Burton Craige — Personal Injury: Medical Malpractice
• Hank Patterson — Workers’ Compensation
• Michael Okun — Labor & Employment Law
• Jonathan Harkavy — Alternative Dispute Resolution

In addition, Jonathan Harkavy was named to the list of the Top 100 attorneys in North Carolina.

Law & Politics conducts a regional survey of lawyers who have been in practice for at least five years, asking them to nominate the best attorneys they’ve personally observed in action.  In addition, the magazine’s attorney-led research department reviews nominees’ credentials based on a set of evaluation criteria.  To ensure a diverse and well-balanced list, the research staff considers factors such as firm size, practice area and geographic location.

Summary: The 2008 Term of the Supreme Court of the United States, forged in volatile economic times and framed on a changing political palette, not only reaffirmed the Court’s interest in employment-related cases, but also revealed a growing institutional confidence in shaping employment law. While a fully coherent approach to employment disputes continued to elude the Court, it was not for lack of trying, as the Justices decided nearly a dozen cases treating some aspect of the employment relationship. Notably, these cases, many of which were determined by closely divided votes, mirror a deep philosophical fracture portrayed more broadly across the spectrum of the Court’s work. All in all, therefore, the 2008 Term was one of high interest for both the employment bar and the general public, as well as one of considerable consequence for workers, employers, and labor organizations.

This paper first comments briefly on the scope of the Court’s work during the 2008 Term and the place of employment law in it. Next, the major portion of the paper is devoted to the term’s decisions arranged by broad topics. The italicized paragraphs preceding and
following the cases offer my personal take on the decisions and their likely impact on employees, employers, and labor unions. Following that review of decisions is a listing of the Court’s grants of certiorari in employment-related cases to be argued and decided in the 2009
Term. The paper concludes with some personal observations about the doctrine and direction of the Court’s employment jurisprudence and the changing character of the employment relationship itself.

Summary: The 2007 Term of the Supreme Court of the United States provided fresh and persuasive evidence of the centrality of work in our lives and the significance of employment law in our jurisprudence during this first decade of the new century. Nearly one out of four civil cases on the Court’s opinion docket involved disputes concerning some aspect of employer-employee relations. How the law regulates and affects the employment relationship thus continued to find detailed, if not fully coherent, expression in the Court’s opinions during the 2007 Term. This paper first reviews the term’s decisions arranged largely by subject matter. The italicized paragraphs preceding and following the cases offer some personal commentary on the decisions and their likely impact on workers, employers, and their lawyers, and more generally on our employment laws. Following this term’s cases are brief summaries of the grants of certiorari in employment-related cases for the 2008 Term. The paper concludes with a brief observation about the structure of federal employment law in the wake of the Court’s recent decisions.