Stephen A Miller

April 09, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in an important case regarding employers' obligations to accommodate employees' religious practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Must the employer have actual knowledge that the applicant or employee requires a religious accommodation, or does a hunch suffice? And must that knowledge come from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee, or can it come from some other source? The justices will try to answer these questions in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, No. 14-86.

By Stephen A. Miller and Kaitlin M. DiNapoli

7 minute read

April 08, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in an important case regarding employers' obligations to accommodate employees' religious practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Must the employer have actual knowledge that the applicant or employee requires a religious accommodation, or does a hunch suffice? And must that knowledge come from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee, or can it come from some other source? The justices will try to answer these questions in , No. 14-86.

By Stephen A. Miller and Kaitlin M. DiNapoli

7 minute read

March 12, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Child abuse cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute, in large part because there are often few witnesses to the alleged abuse, and those witnesses are often very young. The question whether those young witnesses must testify about their abuse in court, therefore, has great practical and constitutional importance. The U.S. Supreme Court already held in 1990 that child abuse victims, under certain circumstances, can testify via closed-circuit television (and therefore not directly face their alleged abusers). The question before the court this term in Ohio v. Clark, No. 13-1352, is whether those victims need to testify at all.

By Stephen A. Miller and Kathryn A. Young

6 minute read

March 11, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Child abuse cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute, in large part because there are often few witnesses to the alleged abuse, and those witnesses are often very young. The question whether those young witnesses must testify about their abuse in court, therefore, has great practical and constitutional importance. The U.S. Supreme Court already held in 1990 that child abuse victims, under certain circumstances, can testify via closed-circuit television (and therefore not directly face their alleged abusers). The question before the court this term in , No. 13-1352, is whether those victims need to testify at all.

By Stephen A. Miller and Kathryn A. Young

6 minute read

February 12, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to overhaul its First Amendment jurisprudence in a case involving street signs in Arizona. For many years, the court has applied the First Amendment's protection—"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"—with different levels of rigor depending on the type of speech involved.

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

6 minute read

February 12, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to overhaul its First Amendment jurisprudence in a case involving street signs in Arizona. For many years, the court has applied the First Amendment's protection—"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"—with different levels of rigor depending on the type of speech involved.

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

6 minute read

January 15, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In Young v. United Parcel Services, No. 12-1226, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the appropriate standard to apply in determining whether an employer has violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. More specifically, the court will determine under what circumstances pregnant employees are entitled to work accommodations that are provided to their non-pregnant coworkers.

By Stephen A. Miller and Jessica A. Hurst

8 minute read

January 14, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In , No. 12-1226, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the appropriate standard to apply in determining whether an employer has violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. More specifically, the court will determine under what circumstances pregnant employees are entitled to work accommodations that are provided to their non-pregnant coworkers.

By Stephen A. Miller and Jessica A. Hurst

8 minute read

December 29, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

In United States v. Elonis, No. 13-983, the U.S. Supreme Court will attempt to define when comments made on social media platforms cross the line from protected free speech to criminal activity. The case arose in our own Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Anthony Elonis posted violent rap lyrics and graphic messages on Facebook about his estranged wife, co-workers and an FBI agent. The communications were objectively threatening, but the relevant question is whether that speech is protected if the government cannot prove that the speaker intended to act on the threat.

By Stephen A. Miller and Alexa L. Sebia

6 minute read

December 04, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

This term, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider a number of issues in the area of federal practice and procedure. This article analyzes three of those important cases.

By Stephen A. Miller and Stephen S. Kempa

7 minute read