2018 Employment Law in Review, Part 1: SCOTUS

Last year was filled with important employment decisions that will have an effect on future litigation of employment claims on both the state and federal level. In the first entry of our two-part series, we discuss some of the most significant United States Supreme Court cases impacting employment law during 2018. Part two will explore changes in employment laws in Texas.

In its decision in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 200 L. Ed. 2d 889 (2018), the Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) protection of employees’ right to engage in concerted activities does not guarantee employees a right to participate in class or collective action lawsuits. Therefore, employers may require employees to sign class- and collective-action waivers housed in employment arbitration agreements as a condition of employment without running afoul of the NLRA, and such agreements will be enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.

This big “win” for employers means they can now prevent workers from pursing costly class-action lawsuits against the company for claims arising out of the employment relationship – forcing employees to litigate any and all employment claims individually.

Contrary to what many believe was a “win” for religious objectors seeking to overcome the reach of anti-discrimination laws, the Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 201 L. Ed. 2d 35 (2018) does not authorize businesses to discriminate against customers because of their sexual orientation. The Court reaffirmed that while religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views, “it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

Although the Court did rule in favor of the cake shop owner, it did so on very narrow grounds – focusing on the fact that the owner did not receive “neutral and respectful consideration” of his claims to which he was entitled. The Court noted that certain comments made by the commissioner were hostile and “cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication” of the case. Thus, because the Commission’s actions were in violation of the state’s obligation to religious neutrality, the Court held the Commission’s order requiring the owner to cease and desist from discriminating against same-sex couples be set aside.

Because the case was decided on very fact-specific grounds, its holding lends little precedential value going forward. However, it does lay out the framework...