U.S. Supreme Court Adds to Growing Business Docket

U.S. Supreme Court Adds to Growing Business Docket

As we have previously discussed on this blog, the Roberts Court has been relatively business friendly over the past several years, with key victories last term including the invalidation of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate as it applies to closely held corporations and the determination that employers do not have to pay unionized employees for time spent changing in and out of protective gear.

Of course, the trend is not guaranteed to continue. Below are several key business cases that we will be watching over the 2014-2015 Term:

Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz: The Court will delve back into U.S. patent law with a case involving Teva Pharmaceuticals’ successful Copaxone drug, which is used to treat multiple sclerosis. The specific question before the justices is whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires, or only for clear error, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires.

Young v. UPS: Women’s health issues will reclaim the spotlight when the justices address what types of accommodations employers must make for pregnant workers. As detailed in a prior post, the Court has specifically been asked to determine whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.” While the Fourth Circuit found that UPS properly denied a lifting accommodation requested by a pregnant worker, the decision conflicts with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s latest pregnancy discrimination guidance.

Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers District Council: In the much-anticipated securities litigation case, the Court will decide the standard for pleading a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which authorizes a cause of action for investors who have acquired securities under a registration statement that was materially misleading or omitted material information. The specific issue before the justices is whether a plaintiff may plead that a statement of opinion was “untrue” merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false – requiring allegations that the speaker’s actual opinion was different from the one expressed.

The Supreme Court will also likely continue to add cases to the docket that may be of interest to the business community. When announced, many of the decisions will be discussed in-depth on this blog, as well as the Scarinci Hollenbeck Constitutional Law Reporter. Please check back here for an in-depth preview of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which involves when employers can be held liable for religious discrimination.

If you have any questions about the cases pending before the Supreme Court or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.