In Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126, 67 S. Ct. 1547 (1947), the Supreme Court held that members of musical bands were employees of the bands’ leaders, rather than of the operators of the dance halls where the bands played, within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Court emphasized that, inter alia, the...Read More

In Citicorp Indus. Credit, Inc. v. Brock, 483 U.S. 27, 107 S. Ct. 2694 (1987) the Supreme Court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s prohibition on selling “hot goods” applies to secured creditors who acquire the goods pursuant to a security agreement, even when the creditor itself did not engage in an FLSA violation. Statutory Background...Read More

In Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 143 S.Ct. 2279 (2023), the Supreme Court held that for an employer to deny a religious accommodation for an employee as an undue hardship under Title VII, the employer must show that granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs for its particular business. The case is important...Read More

In United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), the Supreme Court applied a multi-factor test for determining whether workers were independent contractors or employees. The case is important because, inter alia, these “Silk factors” came to be applied in cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act to determine whether the economic realities show that workers are “employees” for...Read More

In Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947), the Supreme Court held that the meat boners working in a slaughterhouse, who worked under a contract, owned their own tools, and were paid collectively based on their production, which pay they divided among themselves, were “employees” of the slaughterhouse within the meaning of the Fair Labor...Read More

In Goldberg v. Whitaker House Co-op., Inc., 366 U.S. 28, 81 S. Ct. 933, 6 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1961), the Supreme Court held that members of a knitting cooperative who performed “homework,” were paid on a piece-rate basis to make items for the co-op, and who were subject to expulsion for substandard work, were “employees”...Read More

In Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc. v. Hewitt, 143 S. Ct. 677 (2023), the Supreme Court held that the salary-basis test for certain exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act is not met when the employee at issue is paid a day rate, even when the day rate exceeds the required minimum weekly salary level. More specifically, the...Read More

In Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015), the Supreme Court held that to prove a religion-based disparate treatment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a job applicant need only show that her need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor in...Read More

In Torres v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 142 S. Ct. 2455 (2022), the Supreme Court held that States do not have sovereign immunity against damages claims for servicemember employment discrimination in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The Court determined that by ratifying the Constitution, the States...Read More

In Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 142 S. Ct. 1562 (2022), the Supreme Court held that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions to enforce the antidiscrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act or the Affordable Care Act. Facts The plaintiff, Jane Cummings, was deaf and legally blind. She asked Premier Rehab to...Read More