Supreme decisions: employee retaliation, police pat downs, ERISA and more
It’s been a busy day at the U.S. Supreme Court, as the justices handed down six decisions and granted certiorari in three cases.
In the opinion in Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County, the justices held that Title VII protects employees from retaliation for speaking out about discrimination, whether on her own initiative, or in answering questions during an employer’s internal investigation. See more here on that case from Lawyers USA.
In Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, the Court held that Police are protected by absolute immunity from being sued over the adequacy of supervision, training, and information-system management systems. The Defendant claimed the inadequate system prevented his defense from being given information about deals cut by informant witnesses.
In Arizona v. Johnson, The Court ruled that a pat down of a car passenger during a traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
In a case that will have divorce attorneys everywhere paying special attention, the Court ruled in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan that a waiver in a divorce decree is not sufficient to divest interest in a pension plan under ERISA.
The court also ruled on anti-dumping laws’ application to uranium dumping services in U.S. v. Eurodif, and issued a per curiam sentencing guidelines opinion in Nelson v. U.S.
But wait, there’s more:
The court agreed to add three cases to its docket, taking up: Maryland v. Shatzer , which asks whether police can resume questioning of a suspect two years after the suspect asked for a lawyer without running afoul of Miranda; Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, considering whether a company must give a former employee information they had argued was protected by attorney-client privilege; and McDaniel v. Brown, which considers whether evidence presented during federal habeas review of a sexual assault conviction was clearly insufficient.
More on these cases on Lawyers USA‘s website.
