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
- Coronavirus
- Arbitration
- Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- IRS
- OSHA
- Department of Labor
- NLRB
- Employer Policies
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Litigation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Retirement
- Social Media
- Accommodation
- ERISA
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- Reasonable Accommodation
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Wage & Hour
- EEOC
- NLRA
- ADAAA
- Title VII
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Unions
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- 401(k)
- Technology
- Privacy
- Transgender Issues
- Workplace Accommodations
- FMLA
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Disability
- Workplace Violence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Religion Discrimination
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Benefits
- Overtime Pay
- Representative Election Regulations
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Department of Justice
- Privacy Laws
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Future of Arbitration
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Gig Economy
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 3/7/2022
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 2/7/2022
- Supreme Court Re-Implements Stay of Vaccine Mandate for Employers, Upholds CMS Mandate
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Twelve Thoughts About Vaccine Mandates
- Update on Status of Federal Contractor Mandate and OSHA’s ETS
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment Law Advice from Ebenezer Scrooge
- Update on Status of All Federal Vaccine Mandates
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Federal Vaccine Mandate(s) Update