|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-86||10th Cir.||Feb 25, 2015||Jun 1, 2015||8-1||Scalia||OT 2014|
Holding: To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer actually knew of his need.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on June 1, 2015. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 16 2014||Application (13A1139) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 27, 2014 to June 26, 2014, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|May 19 2014||Application (13A1139) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until June 26, 2014.|
|Jun 16 2014||Application (13A1139) to extend further the time from June 26, 2014 to July 25, 2014, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Jun 17 2014||Application (13A1139) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until July 25, 2014.|
|Jul 25 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 27, 2014)|
|Aug 27 2014||Brief amici curiae of Religious Organizations filed.|
|Aug 27 2014||Brief of respondent Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 10 2014||Reply of petitioner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed.|
|Sep 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Oct 2 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 9 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 26, 2014.|
|Oct 9 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 15, 2015.|
|Nov 17 2014||Order further extending time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits to and including December 3, 2014.|
|Nov 17 2014||Order further extending time to file respondent's brief on the merits to and including January 21, 2015.|
|Dec 3 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Dec 3 2014||Brief of petitioner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed.|
|Dec 9 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Umme-Hani Khan filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Jewish Committee, et al. filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, et al. filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, et al. filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Fifteen Religious and Civil Rights Organizations filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Arizona, et al. filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Council on American-Islamic Relations filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 25, 2015|
|Dec 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.|
|Dec 30 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit. The record is electronic and located on PACER, also received 1-Box of pleadings in the case.|
|Jan 7 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 21 2015||Brief of respondent Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 28 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 28 2015||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 28 2015||Brief amici curiae of The National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 28 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 18 2015||Reply of petitioner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 25 2015||Argued. For petitioner: Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 1 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.|
|Jul 6 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jul 21 2015||Record from U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit has been returned.|
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
Who you calling “shrinking”? — the shadow docket
With #SCOTUS’s shrinking docket, we have to wonder if @SCOTUSblog will become a bi-monthly publication.
The Supreme Court will take up voting rights this morning.
Oral argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Justices to consider whether Arizona’s voting rules discriminate against minorities - SCOTUSblog
The 2020 elections may be over, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in a pair of voting-rights ...
Tomorrow morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a pair of voting rights cases involving Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits policies or laws that result in racial discrimination in voting.
Missed the morning orders? @AHoweBlogger's got you covered. Read about the new grants including a review of Puerto Rico’s eligibility for a federal benefits program. Plus, she's got an overview of several high-profile petitions still under consideration.
Court will review Puerto Rico’s eligibility for federal benefits program - SCOTUSblog
The court on Monday morning issued orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Feb. 26. The justic...
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.