July 2009 - United States Supreme Court Update

DUFF, WHITE & TURNER, L.L.C.
Attorneys And Counselors At Law

U. S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ISSUED IN JUNE 2009

Age Discrimination: In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Supreme Court issued a decision that will make it more difficult for employees to prevail against employers in age discrimination cases. Gross involved an employee who alleged that his demotion was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The trial judge instructed the jury that the employee, Gross, could establish unlawful discrimination by proving that age was a "motivating factor" in the employer's demotion decision. The jury ruled in favor of Gross. The employer appealed, arguing that age had to be more than a motivating factor, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the employee has to show that age played a "substantial role" in the employer's decision. Gross appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that employees must show that action taken against them, such as suspension, termination, demotion, or failure to hire, would not have been taken if not for their age. Unlike employment discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), where employees have to show only that the employer's action was "motivated" to some extent by the employee's race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Court now has made clear that, under the ADEA, the employee must show that age in particular was the reason for the employer's decision. Therefore, if an employee's age is considered among other factors, such as performance, but the employee cannot establish that age rather than the other factors actually triggered the employment action, the employee cannot prevail.

Reverse Discrimination: In another type of discrimination case, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a suit that arose out of a city's effort to avoid "reverse" race discrimination claims by a group of employees. Ricci v. DeStefano involved a group of white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, who challenged the city's decision not to consider the results of a civil service examination they had taken in order to be considered for promotions. Despite the city's substantial efforts to ensure that the examinations would not unintentionally favor white firefighters, the city's minority firefighters did not score as well as the white firefighters. This resulted in a low number of minority firefighters being eligible for promotions. The city feared being sued for unintentional race discrimination and decided not to consider the test results in its promotion decisions.

Some white and Hispanic firefighters who likely would have been promoted based on their test performance brought a race discrimination suit against the city and city officials under Title VII. The firefighters alleged that by discarding the test results, the city and its officials intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of their race. Both the lower court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the city. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that race should not be a barrier to promotion opportunities and held that employers may not engage in intentional discrimination to avoid a claim of unintentional discrimination, unless there is strong evidence that the employer was attempting to remedy some form of unlawful race discrimination. The Court noted there was insufficient evidence that the city previously had engaged in unintentional race discrimination, and held that disregarding the test results was unlawful discrimination. Ricci is another reminder that race normally cannot be taken into account when making employment or student-related decisions, even if for well-intended reasons.

Special Education Tuition Reimbursement: In Forest Grove School v. T.A., the Supreme Court ruled that a parent may seek reimbursement from a public school district for private school placement of a special education student, even if the student has not previously received special education services from the district. The Court affirmed a holding by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not bar reimbursement in cases where the district does not provide for the student to receive an individualized educational program.

The case arose out of a parents' decision to enroll their son in a private academy after a private consultant diagnosed him with learning disabilities. The school district had found the student ineligible for services and declined to offer the student an individualized education program. In its decision, the Court concluded that the IDEA does not expressly prohibit private school reimbursement in such cases. The Court reasoned that disallowing reimbursement is at odds with the IDEA's purpose and would leave parents without a remedy when they believe the school district unreasonably denies access to special education services altogether. The Court has now ruled in favor of parents in several special education tuition cases, making it clear that a school district may be required to reimburse parents who unilaterally place their special education child in private school.

Student Strip Searches : In another recent case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, the Supreme Court ruled that a strip search of a 13-year-old female student by school officials in an Arizona school district was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. The strip search was conducted by a school nurse, at the direction of the school's assistant principal, who suspected the girl might be in possession of prescription strength ibuprofen. No drugs were found. The mother brought suit and the search was ultimately found to be unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court agreed that the search violated the Fourth Amendment, ruling that school officials had no reasonable expectation of actually finding drugs under the girl's clothes and there was no indication of pending danger to the students in the school, based on the type and quantity of drug the student was suspected of carrying. Because, S.C. law specifically prohibits strip searches of public school students, this ruling has no practical effect in this state.

If you have any questions about any of these recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and their impact on South Carolina public school districts, please feel free to contact this firm.