Issues

After finding that states consistently overtax railroads when compared with similar commercial and industrial property, Congress passed the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 ("the 4-R Act" or "the Act"), 49 U.S.C. § 11501. The 4-R Act permits railroads to challenge a state’s tax assessment as discriminatory in federal court. CSX Transportation, Inc. challenged Georgia’s 2002 tax assessment, claiming it violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Act. The Northern District of Georgia ruled that while the Act permitted CSX Transportation, Inc. to challenge the assessment, it did not permit the railroad to challenge the methods the state used unless it could show that they were irrational or intentionally discriminatory. Agreeing with one other Circuit and affirming the District Court’s decision, the Eleventh Circuit is the fourth Court of Appeals to address the issue. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether a railroad may challenge a state’s methods in assessing its property value under the 4-R Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Respondent Robert McBride, a railroad engineer for Petitioner CSX Transportation Inc. (“CSX”), sued CSX under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), claiming that CSX was responsible for a hand injury that McBride suffered while operating the brakes of a train. In its appeal of the jury’s verdict in favor of McBride, CSX alleges that proximate causation is required for recovery under FELA. McBride contends that proximate causation is not the proper standard of causation, based on recent rulings made by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals. CSX also argues that public policy supports use of a proximate cause standard, while McBride argues that requiring proximate causation actually discourages employers from maintaining safe workplaces. The Supreme Court’s ruling will elucidate the proper standard of causation required under FELA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether the basis for awarding attorney’s fees to a defendant can arise from EEOC’s failure to comply with pre-suit obligations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CRST asserts that Title VII and Court precedent do not require defendants to “prevail on the merits” to be awarded attorney’s fees, and that, even if they do, CRST prevailed on the merits in this case. On the other hand, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) contends that both Title VII and Court precedent require the party to have prevailed on the merits to receive attorney’s fees, meaning that the judgment must bar further litigation on the matter. The outcome of this case implicates the incentives for EEOC to comply with its obligations in pre-suit investigations in Title VII actions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Glen Billing and other investors filed a class action lawsuit against Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd. and other Wall Street investment firms, alleging that the firms violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, by artificially inflating the prices of securities in initial public offerings. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, splitting with other courts, held that since Congress had not specifically immunized this conduct from antitrust liability, the Sherman Act should apply despite the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulation of this area. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will help resolve whether conduct already heavily regulated by the SEC should be automatically immune from antitrust liability, or whether antitrust immunity should only be granted where Congress has expressed a specific intent to immunize the conduct at issue.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Vanessa Simmonds brought suit under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in order to recoup profits realized by Credit Suisse and other investment banks in the course of engaging in short swing trading. The defendants engaged in such trading as underwriters during a series of lucrative initial public offerings in the early 2000s. Section 16(b) limits lawsuits to a two-year period following the date on which profits from trading were realized. In this case, Credit Suisse argues that the two-year time limit enunciated in Section 16(b) begins at the time the defendant realized profits, and constitutes a period of repose, which should not be extended under any circumstance. Simmonds argues that the Section 16(b) time limit should be interpreted in context with Section 16(a), which mandates disclosure in SEC filings of private transactions. Simmonds contends that, when read together, sections 16(a) and 16(b) suggest the time limit should toll until the plaintiff learns of the transaction. The Supreme Court's decision will affect the disclosure policies of investment banks and the time period during which directors can be held liable for short-swing purchases and sales.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Vicky Crawford, a former employee of the Metro School District for Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, brought a Title VII anti-retaliation suit against her employers when she was fired from her job after participating in an internal investigation into sexual harassment rumors. During the investigation, Crawford confirmed the rumors by discussing specific incidents of sexual harassment. Crawford was fired shortly after the investigation was completed. Crawford filed a Title VII anti-retaliation suit, which the trial court dismissed at summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit upheld this decision, ruling that Title VII did not extend to employees who had taken part in an employer’s internal investigations but had not themselves instigated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Metropolitan School District claims that a broader reading of the Act would open up employers to countless Title VII claims, which could discourage employers from initiating internal investigations. Crawford contends that declining to extend the provisions of the anti-retaliation clause to employees who merely participate in internal investigations will discourage employees from taking part in such investigations due to the fear of retaliation, which will render such investigations pointless. How the Supreme Court decides the case will determine the scope of Title VII as applied to employee participation in internal investigations as well as what protections Title VII offers to employees and employers alike.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Vicky Crawford, a former employee of the Metro School District for Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, brought a Title VII anti-retaliation suit against her employers when she was fired from her job after participating in an internal investigation into sexual harassment rumors. During the investigation, Crawford confirmed the rumors by discussing specific incidents of sexual harassment. Crawford was fired shortly after the investigation was completed. Crawford filed a Title VII anti-retaliation suit, which the trial court dismissed at summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit upheld this decision, ruling that Title VII did not extend to employees who had taken part in an employer’s internal investigations but had not themselves instigated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Metropolitan School District claims that a broader reading of the Act would open up employers to countless Title VII claims, which could discourage employers from initiating internal investigations. Crawford contends that declining to extend the provisions of the anti-retaliation clause to employees who merely participate in internal investigations will discourage employees from taking part in such investigations due to the fear of retaliation, which will render such investigations pointless. How the Supreme Court decides the case will determine the scope of Title VII as applied to employee participation in internal investigations as well as what protections Title VII offers to employees and employers alike.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties