Transgender Protections, EEOC Subpoenas, WARN Act Creditors, Arbitration
Labor Relations columnists David E. Schwartz and Risa M. Salins discuss U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2016-17 term pertaining to protections for transgender individuals; the standard of review of a district court's decision to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena; whether priority rules for WARN Act creditors apply in the context of a structured dismissal of a bankruptcy proceeding; and whether a state court rule that disfavors arbitration agreements violates the Federal Arbitration Act.
June 01, 2017 at 02:04 PM
8 minute read
This is the first of two columns discussing U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2016-17 term impacting labor and employment law. This month we review rulings pertaining to protections for transgender individuals; the standard of review of a district court's decision to enforce or quash an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subpoena; whether priority rules for Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act creditors apply in the context of a structured dismissal of a bankruptcy proceeding; and whether a state court rule that disfavors arbitration agreements violates the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). While three of these cases did not arise in the labor and employment context, their dispositions have implications for employers.
Transgender Protections
In Gloucester County School Bd. v. G.G. ex rel. Grimm, 137 S. Ct. 369 (2016), the Supreme Court put off a major decision on transgender rights. The court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit in the wake of the Trump administration's rescission of Obama-era guidance concerning protections for transgender students in public schools.
In Grimm, a local school board banned a transgender student who identified as male from using boys' restrooms at his high school. The student sued the school board for discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Department of Education's regulations implementing Title IX permit the provision of separate toilets “on the basis of sex.” Since the student was biologically female, the district court concluded the school board's requirement that he use the girls' restrooms did not amount to discrimination under Title IX.
The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding the Department of Education's interpretation of its own regulation in an opinion letter dated Jan. 7, 2015 was entitled to deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). The opinion letter concluded that, if a school opts to separate students in restrooms on the basis of their sex, a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity. In Auer, the court held an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation should be given controlling weight unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation or statute. Because the language of the regulation at issue was susceptible to more than one plausible reading—with the phrase “on the basis of sex” potentially alluding to either biological sex or gender identity—the Fourth Circuit deferred to the Department's interpretation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Trip-Wire for Financial Executives
9 minute readJustices, Unanimously, Extend Reach of Federal Age-Discrimination Law
Managing New Employee Paid Leave Laws in Conjunction With ADA, FMLA and Workers' Compensation
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250