"The Justice in the bow tie."
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens died this week at the age of 99. He has received many tributes, and I will always remember him as the "Justice in the bow tie."
Justice Stevens was appointed to the Court by President Gerald R. Ford in 1975 to fill the seat vacated by Justice William O. Douglas's retirement. Justice Stevens retired in 2010 and was replaced by Justice Elena Kagan. According to Wikipedia, Justice Stevens and Justice Douglas are the only Supreme Court justices to have divorced while on the Court. (From their respective wives, not from each other.)
Justice Stevens participated in a some Supreme Court decisions that have had far-reaching effects on employment law. Here are a few:
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986): In Meritor, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time a "hostile work environment" harassment claim under Title VII. Among other things, the employer had tried to defend the case by saying that the plaintiff had "voluntarily" participated in a relationship with her boss. But the Court said that the appropriate standard was "welcomeness," not "voluntariness." The Court also said that evidence of the plaintiff's behavior was admissible to show whether the alleged harasser's behavior was "unwelcome." Finally, the Court said that employers were not absolutely liable for hostile work environment harassment by supervisors, although in this case, the employer had not done enough to insulate itself from liability.
Justice Stevens joined in the majority opinion (written by Justice William Rehnquist), joined a concurrence written by Justice Thurgood Marshall that advocated nearly-absolute liability for employers whose supervisors harassed employees, and wrote a very short concurrence of his own, saying that the disagreements between the majority and Justice Marshall did not affect the outcome of the case.
Twelve years later, Justice Stevens joined the majorities in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, which established our current employer defense to liability for supervisor harassment that does not result in a "tangible job detriment": the employer is liable unless it (1) had measures in place that were designed to prevent and promptly address workplace harassment, and (2) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the employer's processes or otherwise protect herself from harm.
Sutton v. United Air Lines (1999): Remember the twin-sister-nearsighted airline pilots who were rejected for employment by United and who sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Who could forget?
The Supreme Court majority said that nearsightedness was not a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA because it was so easily corrected. "Mitigating measures" had to be taken into account in determining whether an individual had a disability. As a result of the Sutton decision, almost nobody could proceed on an ADA claim for about 10 years because almost nobody was impaired after mitigating measures (corrective lenses, prescription medication, hearing aids, surgery, etc.) were taken into account.
Justice Stevens dissented in Sutton, and his dissent became very interesting in light of the ADA Amendments Act, which took effect in 2009. Justice Stevens argued that, in assessing whether a medical condition was a "disability," the condition should be viewed in its "unmitigated" state. Nearsighted people were substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing, he said, even though corrective lenses or laser surgery allowed them to function normally. Therefore, Justice Stevens argued, nearsighted people do have a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA.
On the other hand, he thought United had a legitimate reason for requiring 20-20 uncorrected vision in airline pilots.
The ADA Amendments Act greatly liberalized the definition of "disability" and adopted Justice Stevens' view that medical conditions must be assessed in their "unmitigated" state. However, the Amendments Act specifically says that garden-variety nearsightedness is not a "disability."
U.S. Airways v. Barnett (2002): One more ADA case. This time, a U.S. Airways baggage handler took a position as a mail clerk after he suffered a back injury. At some point, he was bumped by a more-senior co-worker under a non-collectively-bargained seniority policy that had been in place for many years. The plaintiff lost his job and sued under the ADA, but the Supreme Court (majority opinion by Justice Breyer) held that generally it was not a "reasonable" accommodation for an employer to deviate from a longstanding seniority policy. On the other hand, the majority left the door open for a plaintiff to present evidence that the employer made exceptions to the policy, or otherwise applied it in ways that did not give employees an expectation that it would be strictly followed.
Justice Stevens joined the majority and also wrote a concurrence, noting that "super-seniority" as a disability accommodation was not unreasonable per se. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision did not disturb a ruling from the lower court (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) that the airline should go to trial on whether it sufficiently engaged in the ADA "interactive process" with the plaintiff.
BONUS: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1987). Not strictly an employment case, but this one that has a lot of significance for employers, among others. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion in this case, holding that courts must generally defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. I can't improve on Steve Katz's recent discussion of the "deference" issue, so I'll link to Steve.
Rest in peace, Justice Stevens.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010