This is the first of two columns discussing decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2009-10 term in the area of labor and employment law. Today’s column reviews rulings regarding (1) whether the limitations period for filing disparate-impact claims under Title VII may restart following the application of an earlier-adopted discriminatory practice, (2) the appropriateness of enhanced attorney’s fee awards to prevailing parties in civil rights actions, (3) the ability of arbitrators to impose class action arbitration on parties whose arbitration agreement is silent on class arbitration, and (4) the appropriate level of deference to an ERISA plan administrator’s interpretation of a plan.
Limitations Period
In Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974, 2010 WL 2025206 (May 24, 2010), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) challenging an employer’s adoption of a practice may assert a disparate-impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later application of that practice.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
