USLegal Reporter

The Supreme Court made two separate rulings today which strengthened employee rights to bring retaliation lawsuits.

In one case involving race, the Court said that employees who complain of racial bias in the workplace and then face retaliation can sue under an 1860s civil rights law which prohibits discrimination. A black employee had sued Craker Barrel for retaliation after he complained of racial discrimination by other Cracker Barrel supervisors and was susequently fired. The decision was 7-2.

In the other case, the Court ruled that federal employees who complain of age discrimination and are then retaliated against on the job can also bring retaliation lawsuits. Myrna Gomez-Perez, a postal worker from Puerto Rico,  filed suit against the U.S. Postal Service after she filed an age discrimination complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and then allegedly “suffered a series of reprisals” from her supervisors. Her case can now move forward. The decision was 6-3.

The cases CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 06-1431 and are Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 06-1321.

Sources: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gH986T526cmCxNTdrFpj2Bpo1WTQD90U61581,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4XLLfc71vC4&refer=home 

President Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act today, which prevents employers from using genetic test results that indicate disease risks or predisposition in making hiring, firing, and promotion decisions and insurance companies from using such information in determining coverage eligibility and premium amounts.

In its findings, Congress determined that a ”national and uniform basic standard” is needed as most state laws regarding genetic discrimination by healthcare insurance companies and employers are inconsistent and federal law does not offer adequate protection against this type of discrimination.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/05/bush-signs-legislation-to-bar-genetic.php

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled today that the existing US currency system is unfair to blind and sight-impaired individuals.  The court said the system violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because it does not provide “meaningful access” to money because those who are blind or visually impaired can not distinguish between dollar amounts. The decision was 2-1.

 The suit was brought by the American Council of the Blind.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had argued that changing the bills to differentiate the denominations would be too expensive. However, the court disagreed.

In upholding an earlier ruling by the district court, Judge Judith Rogers said, “A large majority of other currency systems have accommodated the visually impaired, and the Secretary does not explain why U.S. currency should be any different.”

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is responsible for printing paper money. It will now study methods to help the blind and visually impaired.

The case is American Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 02- 864, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington).

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/20/news/money_blind/?postversion=2008052015

The California Supreme Court said on Thursday that same-sex couples have the right to marry. The decision was 4-3.

In its ruling, the court said that domestic partnerships are not enough and that a ban on same-sex marriage amounted to discrimination.

“The statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents—like gender, race, and religion—a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment,” said Chief Justice Ronald George.

Source: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/16/decision-on-gay-marriage-has-wide-impact.html

A week after the measure passed the US Senate, the House of Representatives passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Thursday, which prohibits the use of genetic testing in employment and health insurance practices. Although federal law already addresses race and gender discrimination, the new legislation will specifically prevent employers from using genetic tests in deciding whether to hire, fire or promote a particular individual and insurance companies in deciding whether an individual is eligible for healthcare coverage and in setting the amount of that individual’s premium.

Many employers across the country currently conduct medical exams of employees and use genetic testing to measure certain healthcare risks and hazards, while insurance companies in the past have restricted coverage based on findings of genetic tests. To combat this practice, individuals have been refusing genetic testing and have been paying cash under a false name. Most states have current legislation regarding genetic discrimination by healthcare insurance companies and many have enacted similar employment genetic discrimination laws.

The bill is H.R. 493.

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1153//05-02-2008/20080502063504_28.html

The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Monday upheld a decision by a U.S. District Judge to block a Minnesota law that would fine minors under the age of 17 when purchasing or renting video games with adult ratings. The state argued that minors do not have a First Amendment right to watch violent video games. The court referenced biblical and literary violence as having constitutional protection and rejected the $25 fines as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

The ruling is similar to a previous ruling by the same court in 2003 blocking a Missouri law and giving violent video games First Amendment protection. Courts in other states, including California, Illinois, Louisiana and Michigan have also enjoined the enforcement of similar laws.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/federal-appeals-court-rules-minnesota.php

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued final regulations Friday for the REAL ID Act, legislation which was passed in 2005 as an effort to decrease driver’s license or other government identification fraud by terrorists and illegal immigrants.

As a result of much opposition from civil liberties organizations with privacy concerns and 17 states that have enacted laws or resolutions objecting to the Act’s costs, implementation of the Act has been extended from its original date in 2008 to a phase-by-phase implementation to be completed between 2011 and 2017. States will be required to seek a waiver for more time to comply with the law if the state wants its residents’ current driver’s licenses to remain valid for air travel after May 2008. If a state fails to seek a waiver, its residents will be required to use a passport or a new federal passport document to avoid secondary security screenings. All states must begin checking social security numbers and immigration status of driver’s license or identification card applicants over the next year. Ultimately, states will be required to check with the State Department for verification of applicants who use passports to obtain driver’s licenses, to verify birth certificates and to communicate with other states to ensure applicants do not have multiple licenses.

Homeland Security has decreased state implementation costs of the Act from $14.6 billion to $3.9 billion and claims that although the new identity cards will have security measures, they will not contain microchips. The new rules also allow a limited exemption for persons over 50 years of age: such persons will be exempt from the requirement that by 2014, persons must show a REAL ID driver’s license or identification card in order to board an airplane or enter a federal building. The regulations provide states with more time to comply with the Act by not imposing these requirements on persons 50 years of age or older until 2017.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/01/homeland-security-issues-real-id-act.php; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/secure_driver_s_licenses

The University of Colorado said today that it has reached a settlement in a lawsuit brought by two women who alleged that they were sexually assaulted by football players and recruits at an off-campus party. Lisa Simpson will receive $2.5 million while Anne Gilmore will be paid $350,000 to resolve both claims.

The university will also add a staff position in its Office of Victim’s Assistance and will conduct a study to avoid future misconduct.

The women claimed in their lawsuit that the university knew of the risk of sexual harassment in connection with the football recruiting program, but failed to stop it. They said this was a violation of Title IX, a federal law which mandates equality in education. 

The scandal led to the resignations of university President Elizabeth Hoffman and Athletic Director Dick Tharp. 

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=adDAPsNWyMd4&refer=home

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton in Tacoma, Washington signed an injunction Thursday that allows pharmacists in Washington state to refuse to sell the ‘morning-after’ or ‘Plan B’ birth control pill if they can refer a customer to another nearby pharmacy where the drug is available.

In July, two pharmacists and a drugstore owner filed a civil rights lawsuit against the state for regulations passed in July that required pharmacies to dispense Plan B, and only allowed pharmacists with personal or moral objections to refuse if another pharmacist in the same pharmacy could dispense the drug.

The parties asked the judge to prevent required Plan B sales while the suit is pending. Leighton stated that ‘[o]n the issue of free exercise of religion alone, the evidence before the court convinces it that plaintiffs … have demonstrated both a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury.’

Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004003599_planb09m.html

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/11-09-2007/80950015c5b07ca4.html

The Florida Supreme Court unanimously held Thursday that its lethal injection procedures, including more recently implemented safeguards, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Florida Attorney General stated that the state plans on moving forward with the execution of Mark Dean Schwab, scheduled for November 15, 2007.

Schwab, who was convicted of a 1991 rape and murder, claimed that the chemicals used in lethal injection methods can cause excruciating pain and that new evidence shows he personally suffers from a brain impediment. The argument regarding pain caused by lethal injection chemicals is identical to the claim in the Kentucky case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/11/florida-supreme-court-upholds-state.php