The first significant Supreme Court pronouncements on employment law are here and both seem tailored to create further litigation. The first, decided late last week, is NASA v. Nelson, unanimously reversing a 9th Circuit decision that government employment background check questionnaires violated the constitutional right to “information privacy.” The Court held as follows:
In two cases decided over 30 years ago, this Court referred broadly to a constitutional privacy “interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 457. In Whalen, the Court upheld a New York law permitting the collection of names and addresses of persons prescribed dangerous drugs, finding that the statute's “security provisions,” which protected against “public disclosure” of patient information, 462 U.S. at 600-601, were sufficient to protect a privacy interest “arguably ... root[ed] in the Constitution,” id. at 605. In Nixon, the Court upheld a law requiring the former President to turn over his presidential papers and tape recordings for archival review and screening, concluding that the federal Act at issue, like the statute in Whalen, had protections against “undue dissemination of private materials.” 433 U.S. at 458. Since Nixon, the Court has said little else on the subject of a constitutional right to informational privacy.
Assuming, without deciding, that the Government's challenged inquiries implicate a privacy interest of constitutional significance, that interest, whatever its scope, does not prevent the Government from asking reasonable questions of the sort included on SF-85 and Form 42 in an employment background investigation that is subject to the Privacy Act's safeguards against public disclosure.
Not surprisingly, the concurring opinion by Justice Scalia took issue with the “assumption” that a constitutional right to informational privacy exists. He and Justice Thomas would have simply held that it does not. Moreover, he suggested that the majority opinion “will dramatically increase the number of lawsuits claiming violations of the right to informational privacy” and amounts to “a generous gift to the plaintiffs’ bar.” The take away from this is that the government may request broad background information from employees and applicants, as long as the inquiry is related to its interest in employing a competent, reliable workforce. Whether and to what extent Justice Scalia’s concerns come to pass remains to be seen but he makes a valid point.
This week, the Supreme Court decided Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, which considered the viability of a retaliation by association claim. The Court held that it is an unlawful employment practice under Title VII to terminate an employee’s “close family member” in retaliation for her filing an EEOC charge. It further held that a terminated “close family member,” in this case a fiancé, would have standing to sue on his own behalf for his termination. This decision is hardly surprising in light of the last Supreme Court holding on retaliation, Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. White. In Burlington, the court articulated the standard for retaliation under Title VII as any employer action that “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Applying this standard, the Court concluded that it was “obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé might be fired.” The Court explained that “firing a close family member will almost always meet the Burlington Standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so.” Of course, that leaves a lot of uncharted territory to consider, e.g. is firing a “mere acquaintance” sufficient; would a “milder reprisal” to a “close family member” be sufficient. For now, these questions are unanswered. Like the NASA decision, leaving the door open to just about any claim rather than crafting a clear test seems designed to encourage further litigation.
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing management in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Coronavirus
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- NLRB
- Discrimination
- Department of Labor
- IRS
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Retirement
- Arbitration
- NLRA
- Employer Policies
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Accommodation
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- EEOC
- Wage & Hour
- 401(k)
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Title VII
- ADAAA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Rules
- Unions
- Transgender Issues
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Technology
- Securities Law
- Privacy
- FMLA
- Disability
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Workplace Violence
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Sixth Circuit
- Disability Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Religion Discrimination
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Representative Election Regulations
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Department of Justice
- Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Healthcare Reform
- Telecommuting
- Electronically Stored Information
- Affirmative Action
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Compensable Time
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Termination Done Right - Part 1
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Welcome 2021 - 5 Things for Employers to Consider
- Congressional Proposal Extends Tax Credits to Companies Providing Paid Leave, but Allows Requirement to Expire
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: EEOC Issues New Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccinations
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Non-Compete Agreements - Five Mistakes by Three Parties
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment At-Will – Myth or Reality?
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: COVID-19 Immunity Laws
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Reductions in Force - Key Factors to Consider
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast
- 5 Things Employers Should Know About Military Leave