|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1226||4th Cir.||Dec 3, 2014||Mar 25, 2015||6-3||Breyer||OT 2014|
Holding: A plaintiff alleging that the denial of an accommodation constituted disparate treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires employers to treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work,” may make out a prima facie case by showing that she belongs to the protected class, that she sought accommodation, that the employer did not accommodate her, and that the employer did accommodate others similar in their ability or inability to work. The employer may then seek to justify its refusal to accommodate the plaintiff by relying on “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reasons for denying accommodation.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on March 25, 2015. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kennedy and Thomas joined. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 8 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 10, 2013)|
|May 2 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 10, 2013.|
|May 10 2013||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors, and Women's Rights Organizations filed.|
|Jun 7 2013||Brief of respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 12 2013||Reply of petitioner Peggy Young filed.|
|Jun 19 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Oct 7 2013||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 19 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 2 2014||Supplemental brief of petitioner Peggy Young filed.|
|Jun 3 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.|
|Jun 4 2014||Supplemental brief of respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 23 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.|
|Jun 30 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 30, 2014.|
|Jul 1 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 18 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 4, 2014.|
|Jul 18 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 24, 2014.|
|Jul 29 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jul 31 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 3, 2014.|
|Sep 4 2014||Brief of petitioner Peggy Young filed.|
|Sep 4 2014||Joint appendix filed (two Volumes). (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Sep 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors and Women's and Civil Rights Organizations filed.|
|Sep 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and A Better Balance, et al. filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amici curiae of Black Women's Health Imperative, et al. filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amici curiae of U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, et al. filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amici curiae of 23 Pro-Life Organizations and the Judicial Education Project filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amici curiae of Bipartisan State and Local Legislators filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amici curiae of Health Care Providers, et al. filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Sep 25 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. of Maryland. The record is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 3 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit is 1 Box, the records are SEALED.|
|Oct 24 2014||Brief of respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. filed.|
|Oct 31 2014||Brief amici curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council, et al. filed.|
|Oct 31 2014||Brief amicus curiae of American Trucking Associations, Inc. filed.|
|Oct 31 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed.|
|Oct 31 2014||Brief amicus curiae of U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed.|
|Nov 3 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 7 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 20 2014||Reply of petitioner Peggy Young filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 3 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Samuel R. Bagenstos, Ann Arbor, Mich.; and Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Caitlin J. Halligan, New York, N. Y.|
|Mar 25 2015||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy and Thomas, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Mar 25 2015||Record from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit has been returned.|
|Apr 27 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.