|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|
#SCOTUS does not take up 2nd question in the case, on whether to overrule its 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Full order is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012122zr_3f14.pdf https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1484606315519516675
#SCOTUS grants one new case, sets it for argument in April: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, on whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
More opinions coming on Monday.
#SCOTUS website indicates that the Court is expected to release more opinions on Monday morning at 10 am.
The next #SCOTUS grants? Kevin McCarthy v. Nancy Pelosi in a fight over congressional proxy voting; the First Amendment-based ministerial exception to employment law returns; nondelegation doctrine (!); and the constitutionality of the FTC's structure.
Revenge of the rescheduled cases: Congressional proxy voting, the ministerial exception, and more - SCOTUSblog
The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming con...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court, over dissents from the three liberal justices, rejects a request from Texas abortion clinics to immediately return the litigation over Texas' six-week abortion law to a federal district court.
The Supreme Court issues a single opinion today, ruling in an 8-1 vote that a criminal defendant's rights were violated under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause when the government introduced a plea allocution from another proceeding. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: We expect one or more opinions in argued cases to be issued starting at 10 a.m. EST. At 9:45, we'll fire up our live blog, where we'll also chat about this week's arguments and last night's ruling on Trump records. Grab your ☕️ & join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, Jan. 20 - SCOTUSblog
On Thursday, January 20, we will be live blogging as the court releases opinions in one or more argued cases f...