Employment Law Update: The Supreme Court Will Be Making Key Employment Law Decisions This Term
Date: October 30, 2024
E.M.D. Sales, Inc. et al. v. Carrera, et al., Docket No. 23-217, is an FLSA case that asks whether the standard of proof applied to employers when defending an employee’s exempt status under the FLSA should be the lesser preponderance of the evidence standard. The case arises out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which governs Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina) which applied a clear and convincing evidence standard, notwithstanding a trend in at least six other Circuits for the less burdensome preponderance of the evidence standard. The preponderance standard only requires proof that a fact is more probable than not. By comparison, the higher “clear and convincing” standard requires evidence showing a “firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy” of a fact. Should the Court rule for the employer, the decision will significantly lessen the burden on employers defending worker classification decisions, and, as argued by E.M.D., “set a level playing field, treating both sides equally.”
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Docket No. 23-1039, arises out of a claim by a state employee claiming she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation (heterosexual), when she was demoted and replaced by a gay female, and then later removed from her position in favor of a gay man. The Petitioner, Ms. Ames is challenging a heightened evidentiary standard that requires majority group plaintiffs to establish “background circumstances” that “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The higher standard originated from a 1981 District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision, which has either been rejected or disregarded by other courts faced with the issue.
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, Docket No. 23-997. This third case involves a former firefighter, who retired due to disability, challenging the elimination of a health insurance subsidy by the City of Sanford. Until the change went into effect, all qualifying retirees, regardless of whether they had a service retirement, or retirement due to disability, qualified for the subsidy. Once the change went into effect, only service retirees qualified for the subsidy. The Petitioner challenged the elimination of the subsidy under the Americans with Disabilities Act; however, her case was rejected on the grounds that she was not a qualified individual able to bring suit, because she was no longer employed by the fire department. The issue before the Court is whether the ADA should allow a claim by a former employee based on a change in post-employment benefits by an employer.
Whiteford’s Labor & Employment Team will continue to monitor these cases and update readers as the Court issues its decisions. Employers with questions on the potential impact of these cases on their workforce are invited to reach out to one of our Labor & Employment attorneys for guidance.
The information contained here is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be acted upon without consulting an attorney. Counsel should not be selected based on advertising materials, and we recommend that you conduct further investigation when seeking legal representation.