Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query labor returned 102 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996) [Syllabus]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Concurrence]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Concurrence]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Dissent]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Opinion]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Concurrence]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Syllabus]
	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	NLRB V. KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC. [Syllabus] The burden of proving supervisory status in a representation hearing and unfair-labor-practice proceeding falls on the employer, the party asserting supervisory status; the NLRB's categorical exclusion of professional judgments from the term "independent judgment" is inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	[Syllabus]
	N.L.R.B. V. TOWN & COUNTRY ELEC, INC., ET, 516 U.S. 85 (1995) [Syllabus]
	NASA V. FLRA [Syllabus]
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	[Syllabus]
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATESV. BROWN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DOE V. CHAO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	[Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KASTEN V. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP. [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT [Syllabus]
	NEW PROCESS STEEL, L. P. V. NLRB [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	558 U. S. ____ (2009) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	[Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD. V. COKE [Syllabus]
	CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY [Syllabus] Whether a public agency governed by the compensatory time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 207 (o), may absent a preexisting agreement, require its employees to use accrued compensatory time."
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	[Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	IBP, INC. V. ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RAGSDALE V. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. [Syllabus] A Labor Department regulation requiring an employer to grant an additional 12 weeks of leave to an employee who has not been informed that a previous absence would be counted as part of the 12 weeks of leave guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is contrary to the Act and beyond the Labor Secretary's authority.
	[Syllabus]
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	RICHLIN SECURITY SERVICE CO. V. CHERTOFF [Syllabus]
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	AUER V. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. V. UNITED STATESEX REL. KIRK [Syllabus]
	NORTH STAR STEEL CO. V. THOMAS, 515 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	UNITED STATES V. MARCUS [Syllabus]
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	STERN V. MARSHALL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	UNITED STATES V. RUIZ [Syllabus] The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
	RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN [Syllabus] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ONTARIO V. QUON [Syllabus]
	HARRIS TRUST AND SAV. BANK V. SALOMONSMITH BARNEY INC. [Syllabus] Whether a non-fiduciary party in interest with respect to an employee benefit plan that engages in a prohibited transaction, as defined in Section 406(a) (1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (""ERISA""), 29 U.S.C. 1106(a)(1), with the plan can be sued under ERISA 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), for ""appropriate equitable relief,"" including restitution."
	[Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. PEABODY COAL CO. [Syllabus] Although the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operator or related entity, initial assignments made after that date are valid despite their untimeliness.
	[Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	BENEFICIAL NAT. BANK V. ANDERSON [Syllabus] This Court has long held that section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, creates an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive federal remedy for usury claims by borrowers against national banks, preempting state law under the doctrine of ordinary preemption. Borrowers filed this case against a national bank in state court, claiming violation of state usury law, and the national bank removed the case to federal district court, where a motion to remand was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and explicitly disagreed with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holding that section 30 completely preempts state usury claims against national banks and thus permits removal of cases asserting state usury laws against them. The question presented is:
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	GLOVER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
	[Syllabus]
	MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY [Syllabus]
	BREUER V. JIM’S CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC. [Syllabus] Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
	FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON [Syllabus] A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.