On September 25, AARP and AARP Foundation filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Babb v. Wilkie (No. 18-882). NELA and The Institute joined the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the National Women’s Law Center in signing on to this brief, which addresses the standard for federal sector employees to prove age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. Dr. Noris Babb was employed by the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department. She filed suit against the VA, asserting that the VA made various decisions regarding her employment that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The ADEA’s text governing federal employees, 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a), requires that decisions “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age,” in contrast to the ADEA’s private- and non-federal public-sector provision, which simply bars discrimination “because of” age. A U.S District Court dismissed Babb’s ADEA case, which was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit, ruling that federal sector employees must show that age considerations were a “but-for” cause and not just a “motivating factor” in employment decisions. In its brief, AARP argues that the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of 633a(a) ignores the broad language of the
Amicus Briefs
Amicus Brief: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia
On July 3, 2019 the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) and The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy (The NELA Institute) joined the Impact Fund in filing an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court (S.C. 17-1618, 17-1623, 18-107) in support of LGBTQ workers. Impact Fund, NELA, and The NELA Institute filed this brief in support of the Petitioners in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and Respondent in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., addressing not only the pervasive workplace discrimination LGBTQ workers face, but more importantly the lack of clarity that exists in applying workplace protection laws to those who are discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The amicus brief, written by Impact Fund’s Lindsay Nako and David Nahmias, working in close collaboration with NELA members, focuses on the circuit split in the treatment of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This is further confused by the existing consensus among the circuits regarding discrimination based on transgender status. As the brief notes, “The three decisions under review underscore the unpredictability in the law for LGBT people. Faced with similar … Read More
NELA Amicus Brief: Frappied, et al v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC (10th Cir.)
On June 6, 2019 NELA and The NELA Institute filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (10th Cir. Case No. 0:19-cv-01063). NELA and The NELA Institute filed this brief in support of the Plaintiffs, challenging the district court decision that the Plaintiffs, older female employees fired by management while younger women and older men remained, failed to state a claim under Title VII. The district court ruled in contradiction to longstanding jurisprudence, both in the Supreme Court and the circuits, who have long held that discrimination on the basis of sex plus an additional factor (“sex plus”) is discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII.
The amicus brief, written by NELA member Darold Killmer (CO) and Liana Orshan (CO), argues that the district court not only ignored the legal precedent of “sex plus” claims, but also failed to recognize the sociological impact that the intersection of sex and age have on older female workers. Contrary to the district court’s contention that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim of sex discrimination because all women were not affected, courts regularly recognize “sex plus” claims as evidence of discrimination on the basis … Read More
NELA Amicus Brief: Fort Bend County, Texas v Davis (U.S. Supreme Court)
On April 3, 2019, NELA and The NELA Institute jointly filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to rule that Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement is a waivable claim-processing rule and not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. This case arose after employee Lois M. Davis filed an internal complaint alleging sexual harassment and assault by an individual in her department, who was investigated and eventually resigned. Soon thereafter, her supervisor, a friend of the alleged harasser, retaliated against Ms. Davis. When he required her to work on a Sunday—a time she had requested off for religious observance—she declined and was fired. Prior to her termination, Ms. Davis filed an official charge with the Texas Workforce Commission, a state agency with a work-sharing agreement with the EEOC, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. After being fired, Ms. Davis amended her intake questionnaire, but not her charging document, to include religious discrimination.
Ms. Davis proceeded to take all her claims to court and went all the way through the summary judgment phase, including her appeal to the 5th Circuit (which she won) and Fort Bend County’s petition for cert. (which the Supreme Court denied). It was only then, some … Read More
NELA Amicus Brief: Heimbach v. Amazon (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania)
On March 6, 2020, NELA joined our Western and Eastern Pennsylvania Affiliates, AFL-CIO, National Employment Law Project, SEIU, UFCWIU, Justice At Work, and Towards Justice in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on behalf of the Appellants in Heimbach v. Amazon (No. 43 EAP 2019). Appellants are a class of men and women who engage daily in grueling work in Amazon’s Pennsylvania warehouses. At the end of each day, workers are required to use their personal, unpaid time to undergo Amazon’s mandated security screenings before they can leave the premises. This brief asks the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to confirm that Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) is more protective than the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the current federal floor for workplace protections, therefore ensuring that Amazon pays their workers for required screenings completed onsite. Amazon and its numerous staffing agencies have argued that they may rely solely on federal workplace laws, including the FLSA and Portal-To-Portal Act (PPA), in calculating labor costs and imposing its labor compensation practices. Additionally, Amazon asks the court to import the de minimis doctrine, which allows employers to avoid paying workers for “infrequent and insignificant periods of time beyond … Read More
CO-PELA NDRN NELA Amicus Brief – Exby-Stolly v Bd of Commissioners (10th Cir)
Laurie Exby-Stolley, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, CO
… Read MoreNELA Impact Fund Amicus Brief_Acosta v. Austin Electrical Servs. (9th Cir.)
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018, NELA joined a coalition of civil and employee rights organizations in filing an amicus brief in support of the Plaintiff-Appellees in Acosta v. Austin Electrical Services, pending currently in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case concerns the defendant-employer using an ostensibly neutral workplace audit as a pretense to deploy inappropriate, misleading, and potentially coercive tactics towards workers participating in an ongoing collective action against the company. When the district court justifiably enjoined the employer from continuing its campaign against the workers, the company sought appellate review. The amicus brief highlights the broad discretion afforded to district courts to ensure defendants do not sabotage employees’ efforts to vindicate their rights. The brief also summarizes the various forms of underhanded methods that far too often are deployed to chill employee participation and undermine the enforcement of workplace laws, and emphasizes the important role district courts can play in managing cases in ways that protect vulnerable litigants from abusive behavior. The brief was drafted by NELA members Bryan Schwartz (Oakland, CA), Lindsay Nako (Berkeley, CA), Matthew Helland (Oakland, CA), and Adam Hansen (Minneapolis, MN).
… Read MoreNELP IBT EPI NELA Amicus Brief – New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira (U.S. Supreme Court)
On July 25, 2018, NELA joined the Economic Policy Institute and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in supporting an amicus brief authored by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, pending currently in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case concerns whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) exemption of “contracts of employment” from its coverage applies to clauses purporting to treat workers as independent contractors, and whether the resolution of that question may properly be delegated to an arbitrator. In addition to arguing that the contract at issue in this case should be exempt under the plain language of the FAA, the amicus brief adds essential context by detailing the independent contractor misclassification problems endemic in the trucking industry and the abuses of workers they engender, in addition to the detrimental effects they have on other employers, state budget and tax coffers, and on employers’ economic incentives to misclassify more drivers. The brief was authored by NELA member Catherine K. Ruckelshaus and Ceilidh Gao of NELP.
… Read MoreAARP NELA Amicus Brief – Mt. Lemmon Fire District v. Guido & Rankin
On July 12, 2018, NELA was pleased to join our colleagues at AARP and AARP Foundation Litigation on an amicus brief in support of the Respondents John Guido and Dennis Rankin in Mt. Lemmon Fire District v. Guido & Rankin, pending currently in the U.S. Supreme Court. This case concerns whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to state and local government entities with fewer than twenty employees. The brief makes a number of compelling arguments in favor of upholding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the ADEA covers the entities in question. First, settled principles of statutory construction that have been reaffirmed many times by the U.S. Supreme Court support the conclusion that the employer in question is covered by the ADEA. Second, the brief draws on a number of previous decisions in which the Court declined to apply interpretations from cases arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to the ADEA, where there were key differences in the texts, contexts, and histories of the respective statutes. Finally, the brief does well to point out that the Petitioners’ arguments regarding the potential threats that ADEA enforcement would pose to the financial survival … Read More
NWLC NELA Amicus Brief_Parker v. Reema Consulting_4th Cir_053018
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018, NELA was proud to join with a coalition of women’s, employee, and civil rights groups led by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) in filing an amicus brief in support of the Plaintiff-Appellant Evangeline Parker in Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, Inc., pending currently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In the course of rising in the ranks while working at the defendant firm, the Plaintiff was subjected to a false and repugnant rumor that her professional advancement was due to her having a sexual relationship with a male manager. The rumor’s spreading resulted in Ms. Parker facing harassment and discrimination, and when she tried to stop the rumor and complained about the harassment she was facing, the company retaliated against her and ultimately terminated her employment. The district court relied on a number of inappropriate grounds in dismissing her claims, including erroneously holding that the type of rumor to which she was subjected could not support a claim for gender discrimination because it could be made about either a male or female employee. The amicus brief marshals a wide array of legal and social science evidence in demonstrating that … Read More
NELA AARP Amicus Brief – In re Anthem & Express Scripts ERISa Litigation
On May 2, 2018, NELA was pleased to join with AARP and AARP Foundation Litigation in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Express Scripts Inc. & Anthem, Inc. ERISA Litigation. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) contains a broad, functional definition of who qualifies as a “fiduciary,” to ensure that employee benefit plans are managed prudently and loyally on behalf of their participants. This appeal concerns whether the district court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendant Anthem, Inc. and a third-party with whom it contracted to provide the pharmacy benefit services to the plan (ESI), were both fiduciaries under ERISA. The brief argues that based on 1) the policies and objectives underlying ERISA; 2) the functional authority granted to Anthem under the terms of the plan; and 3) the discretion exercised by ESI under its agreement with Anthem, both companies were fiduciaries under ERISA. The brief was drafted by Karen L. Handorf of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, with assistance from Mary Ellen Signorille of AARP Foundation Litigation (both Washington, DC).
… Read MoreNWLC NELA Amicus Brief_Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers (2d Cir.)_031418
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018, NELA joined the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and a group of over two dozen women’s, employee, and civil rights organizations in supporting the Plaintiff-Appellants in their appeal in Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers, pending currently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This long-running case involves a challenge to systemic sex discrimination in pay and promotion opportunities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. After being moved from court into arbitration, the plaintiffs in this case argued successfully to the arbitrator that they are entitled to proceed as a class. The defendant convinced the district court to reverse the arbitrator’s decision to certify the class, and the plaintiffs have appealed. Among other important arguments, the amicus brief highlights how essential class actions are to efficiently and effectively addressing pervasive workplace abuses, while also protecting class members from the retaliation they are far too likely to face if forced to proceed individually. The brief was drafted by our colleagues at the NWLC and NELA member Carolyn Wheeler from Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP (Washington, DC).
… Read More