burden of proof

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether, under Section 633a(a) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), federal-sector plaintiffs must show that age discrimination was the but-for cause of an adverse employment action, or whether federal-sector plaintiffs must merely show that their age was a motivating factor for the adverse action. Section 633a(a) states that employment decisions affecting employees or applicants at least 40 years of age “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” Noris Babb, a clinical pharmacist, sued Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Robert Wilkie alleging, among other claims, age and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the ADEA after she was denied a promotion, training, and two clinic positions. Babb argues that Section 633a(a) requires her only to prove that age was a motivating factor in the VA’s adverse personnel decisions. Wilkie, on the other hand, contends that Section 633a(a) requires Babb to prove that age was the but-for cause of—that is, the actual reason for—the employment decisions. This case has implications on the ability of federal-sector workers to prove age discrimination claims under the ADEA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Ideal Steel Supply Corporation and National Steel Supply Inc. were competitors for many years in the New York area, with facilities in Queens and later the Bronx. They each sold steel mill products and other hardware, and the owners were even related by marriage. As Ideal Steel’s sales in the Bronx dropped and National Steel’s increased, despite both companies charging the same price for their product, Ideal Steel became suspicious. In particular, Ideal Steel was concerned about National Steel’s “cash, no tax” policy, in which customers of National Steel that paid with cash did not have to pay the sales tax required by New York State. Ideal Steel filed a civil suit in federal district court alleging that the “cash, no tax” policy constituted racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in that the failure to charge state sales tax and the filing of false sales tax returns was a pattern of mail and wire fraud intended to give National Steel an unfair competitive advantage over Ideal Steel. The district court dismissed Ideal Steel’s claim, ruling that Ideal Steel failed to allege that there was a sufficient connection between National Steel’s alleged illegal conduct and the harm to its business or lost profits. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and ordered that the suit should proceed, ruling that it was sufficient for Ideal Steel to prove that New York State relied on National Steel’s fraudulent conduct, which allowed the scheme to continue, and ultimately led to the harms alleged. The United States Supreme Court must now examine the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and determine whether a company such as Ideal Steel is injured by such violations where the company is not directly defrauded and did not rely on the illegal acts.  

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Petitioner, Atlantic, and Respondent, J-Crew, entered into a contract that included a forum-selection clause limiting venue to two courts in Virginia, including a federal court. Contrary to that provision, J-Crew filed suit in the Western District of Texas alleging breach of contract for nonpayment for contracted services. Atlantic asks the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts and transfer the case to the venue specified by the contract. Atlantic argues that a valid forum-selection clause renders improper any venue not specified in the contract. In opposition, J-Crew contends that proper venue is defined by statute and that a forum-selection clause does not render improper a statutorily permissible forum. This case will resolve the circuit split regarding the enforceability of forum-selection clauses. Specifically, the Supreme Court will determine whether a § 1404(a) transfer is appropriate when a lawsuit is filed in violation of a valid forum-selection clause. This implicates the ability of private parties to contract around federal statutes, raising questions about the limits on the freedom of contract, the ability of plaintiffs to forum-shop, and the capacity for parties to secure a favorable choice-of-law by filing their case first.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

This case asks for the Supreme Court to decide which standard of proof applies when an employer asserts an FLSA exemption as an affirmative defense from liability: preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. Petitioners, E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. (“E.M.D.”), argue that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies only in limited circumstances, not to mere monetary disputes between private parties. Further, E.M.D. asserts that the risk of erroneous decision is equal between the parties. Respondents Faustino Sanchez Carrera et al. (“Carrera”), argue that a clear and convincing evidence standard applies because the FLSA protects important interests. Further, Carrera argues the clear and convincing evidence standard is necessary to allocate the unequal risks among employers and employees. The outcome of this case has serious implications for labor law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

A federal district convicted Kevin Loughrin of bank fraud for using stolen, altered checks to purchase goods from a local Target store and returning them for cash. On appeal, Loughrin claimed he did not violate the bank fraud statute because the statute only criminalizes conduct intended to defraud a financial institution and that poses a risk of harm to that institution. Although he used fraudulent checks, Loughrin claims the target of his scheme was, in fact, Target, and not a bank. The United States argues that a scheme need not target a financial institution, nor expose that institution to risk, to constitute bank fraud. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will affect how broadly Congress can criminalize fraudulent financial actions and how expansively federal criminal jurisdiction can stretch.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In this case, a hair's breadth of analytical difference is worth almost $6 million dollars, as the plaintiffs, former employees at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory ("KAPL") ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Second Circuit's finding for the defendants. The plaintiffs had prevailed at trial and on appeal on a disparate impact theory of illegal age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., when the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Smith v. City of Jackson. While upholding the disparate impact theory, City of Jackson also requires the touchstone of the analysis to be whether employers considered "reasonable factors other than age," which the Second Circuit determined was a burden of persuasion to be borne by the plaintiffs. The employee-plaintiffs disagree, maintaining that the "reasonable factors other than age" harbor in the ADEA statute is a traditional affirmative defense on which the employer-defendants bear the burden of proof. In determining where the burden rests, the Supreme Court's decision will impact the nature of future employee litigation under the ADEA, shape the strategies for a successful reduction in force, and determine what deference is due the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regulations interpreting the ADEA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In a traditional patent infringement suit, the patent owner has the burden of proving infringement. In MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a patent licensee could bring a declaratory judgment action against a licensor without violating the agreement. Here, Petitioner Medtronic entered a license agreement with Respondent Mirowski Family Ventures (“MFV”) that allowed Medtronic to challenge the validity, enforceability, and scope of a medical device patent in a declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court will decide who—the patent owner or the licensee—has the burden of proving infringement in such an action. Medtronic argues that the traditional burden of proof (i.e., burden on the owner) should apply in the declaratory judgment context, as this would promote fairness and consistency in judgments, further the public interest in determining the scope of a patent, and avoid reaching issues of substantive law in declaratory judgment actions. MFV argues that the burden of proving noninfringement should be on the licensee because it is the party seeking relief and because this would incentivize patent owners to enter into license agreements. The Court’s ruling in this case will reshape the incentives for entering into and litigating license agreements, and thereby impact the litigation practices in declaratory judgment actions involving patent licenses.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether the United States must prove elements of a crime not contained in the relevant criminal statute but included in an erroneous jury instruction if the government failed to object to that instruction at trial.  The Court will also consider whether an appellate court may review a statute-of-limitations defense not raised at trial. See Brief for Petitioner, Michael Musacchio at i; Brief for Respondent, United States at i. Michael Musacchio was convicted of conspiracy to access a computer system without authorization. According to the relevant statute, the United States had to demonstrate “Mussachio had agreed to make unauthorized access or exceed authorized access” of a computer system. See United States v. Musacchio, 590 Fed. Appx. 360, 362 (5th Cir. 2014). However, the trial court’s jury instructions stated that the jury must find that Musacchio “intentionally access[ed] a protected computer without authorization and exceed[ed] authorized access.” (emphasis added) See id. at 361. Neither Musacchio nor the United States objected to the instruction. On appeal, Musacchio challenged the sufficiency of the government’s evidence. Musacchio contends that the law-of-the-case doctrine requires the United States to prove the elements of the crime as described in the jury instructions, even when the jury instructions were erroneous and imposed a heightened burden on the government. See Brief for Petitioner, Michael Musacchio, at 19–22. Musacchio also argues that a statue-of-limitations defense not raised at trial is reviewable on appeal. See id. at 37–39; 53. The United States contends that the law-of-the-case doctrine is inapplicable, because the jury instructions were patently erroneous, and the proper statutory elements were stated in the indictment. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 13. The United States further argues that Musacchio waived his statute-of-limitations defense by failing to raise it at trial. See id. at 40–41. The Court’s decision in this case may affect the government’s prosecutorial power, the fairness of trials, and the availability of statute of limitations defenses. See Brief for Petitioner at 19-20; Brief for Respondent at 13, 48-51.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources