Another case decided by the 6th Circuit against an employee (See, e.g., Crawford, Pollard, Harris) has been accepted by the Supreme Court Of The United States.

On June 29, 2010, the SCOTUS granted Eric Thompson’s petition for a writ of cetriorari in his case against North American Stainless, L.P. Click here.

The issue before the Court is whether a third party is afforded protection under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision based on his association with an employee who has engaged in protected activity.

An en banc 6th Circuit had held last summer that a third party such as Mr. Thompson was not afforded protection from retaliation based on his association with an employee (his fiancee’) who engaged in protected activity.09a0202p-06

I blogged about this unfortunate decision in June 2009. Click here.

Interestingly, the Court agreed to hear the Thompson case even though the U.S., through the Solictor General’s office, argued to the court that the case was not cert-worthy. 09-291_cvsg The U.S. did, however, argue that the 6th Circuit’s decision was in error.

The case will likely be argued before the SCOTUS in the fall of 2010 or early 2011. A decision is expected by spring of 2011.

Is an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) protected conduct under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision? That’s the question that U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide.

On Monday, the Court granted cert in Kasten v. St. Gobain Performance Plastics. (click here).

There’s a split among the circuit court of appeals as to whether an oral complaint is sufficient to give rise to protection from retaliation under the FLSA’s ant-retaliation provision, which is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). (click here to see statutory language).

Hopefully, the Court will determine that an oral complaint is sufficient to give protection from retaliation under the FLSA. It doesn’t make sense that a written complaint (scrawled on a napkin for example) would be deemed protected activity whereas an oral complaint (made on the company’s phone hotline for example) would not be protected activity.

Mr. Kasten is represented by James Kaster with the Nichols Kaster firm based in Minneapolis. click here. Go Jim!

On November 14, 2006, the 6th Circuit issued an under the radar per curiam decision dismissing Vicky Crawford’s Title VII retaliation case against Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. See 211 Fed. Appx. 373 (6th Cir. 2006). That had to be an incredibly difficult day for Ms. Crawford.

Fortunately, Ms. Crawford’s petition for cert was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed the 6th Circuit’s decision on January 26, 2009. See Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 129 S.Ct. 846 (2009). The case was remanded for a jury trial on Ms. Crawford’s retaliation claim.

And yesterday, after a week long trial in Nashville federal court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Crawford on her retaliation claim. Ms. Crawford was awarded over 1.5M in damages (420k in compensatory damages; 408k back pay; and 727k front pay). Crawford Verdict Form

If punitive damages were permitted against governmental entities under Title VII, which they are not according to 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(1) (click here), I can only imagine that the verdict would have been even bigger.

Congrats to Ms. Crawford and her trial attorney, Ann Buntin Steiner of Nashville, as well as Professor Eric Schnapper of Seattle, who handled Ms. Crawford’s appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in a closely watched case involving arbitration of employment claims: 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. _____ (2009). penn-plaza.pdf. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court held that a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate age discrimination claims under the ADEA is enforceable as a matter of federal law.

The impact of the case is quite significant. Essentially the case holds that a union can bargain away (and thus waive) its individual members’ rights to pursue federal anti-discrimination claims against the employer. I would not be surprised at all to see this case garner the attention of our elected officials in Washington. Because at this juncture, the preservation of an individual’s right to pursue a federal anti-discrimination claim in court is solely in the hands of Congress.