The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions today: Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Heath, No. 23-1127: This case considers whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal...more
The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off its new term on October 7, 2024. This term, the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on at least four cases that raise important issues that may have far-reaching implications for...more
The Supreme Court of the United States opened up the new term on October 7, 2024. The Court is currently slated to address 40 cases this term. Oral arguments will be heard for nine cases in October and an additional seven in...more
On May 25, 2023, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a post-trial motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 50(b) is not required to preserve appellate review of a purely legal issue resolved at...more
With essential unanimity, though with an array of concurrences in one of them, the Supreme Court ruled against government parties in three cases, two of them in favor of homeowners, and in property rights and environmental...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions: Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166: This case involved the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” in the context of seizing property to collect unpaid...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued five decisions: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468: This case involved a constitutional challenge to California’s “animal cruelty law” known as...more
The United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, No. 21-887, opening the door for future claims against schools for compensatory monetary damages. In its unanimous opinion, the Supreme...more
The United States Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision, Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools et al., which provides clarification about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (“IDEA”) exhaustion...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a deaf student in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 143 S. Ct. 81 (U.S. 2022), where the Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) exhaustion...more
The Supreme Court unanimously held in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, No. 21-887 (Mar. 21, 2023) that a student can sue for compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) even when they have not...more
Can public school children with disabilities sue their schools for violations of the federal antidiscrimination statutes and collect compensatory damages before exhausting their administrative remedies under the Individuals...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued one decision: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, No. 21-887: This case considered whether a federal education law’s administrative exhaustion requirements precluded a...more
Participants in administrative proceedings are routinely cautioned to raise, or "exhaust," all issues with the agency to avoid being barred from later raising those issues in court. But whether a court will require issue...more
Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Fort Bend County v. Davis that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is a claims-processing requirement, not a jurisdictional requirement, which means...more
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") unanimously held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that federal courts may be able to hear claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title...more
Who’s Running USCIS? The Buzz was away last week, so we didn’t get a chance to comment on the departure of L. Francis Cissna from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It has been reported that former Virginia...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may be able to proceed with a federal discrimination lawsuit, even if the employee has not first filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit in court. The lawsuit involved an individual, Lois...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision limiting an employer’s ability to dismiss federal employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Fort Bend County v....more
On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, unanimously finding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and that employers may forfeit...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the requirement set forth in Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that a plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing suit is...more
Resolving a circuit split regarding the jurisdictional nature of Title VII’s charge-filing requirement—the statutory requirement that an employee who alleges that he or she has been subjected to unlawful treatment is required...more