Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query labor returned 89 results.

	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996) [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Syllabus]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Dissent]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Concurrence]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Concurrence]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Syllabus]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Concurrence]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Opinion]
	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF DEFENSE V. F.L.R.A., 510 U.S. 487 (1994). [Syllabus]
	NLRB V. KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC. [Syllabus] The burden of proving supervisory status in a representation hearing and unfair-labor-practice proceeding falls on the employer, the party asserting supervisory status; the NLRB's categorical exclusion of professional judgments from the term "independent judgment" is inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	LIVADAS V. BRADSHAW, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	NASA V. FLRA [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	DOE V. CHAO [Syllabus]
	PAULEY V. BETHENERGY MINES, INC., 501 U.S. 680 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BUILDING & CONSTR. TRADES COUNCIL OF THE METRO. DIST. V. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS [Syllabus]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999) [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	TRIVONA CORP. V. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF TREASURY, 498 U.S. 358 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ABF FREIGHT SYS. V. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HAWAIIAN AIRLINES V. NORRIS, 512 U.S. 246 (1994). [Syllabus]
	N.L.R.B. V. TOWN & COUNTRY ELEC, INC., ET, 516 U.S. 85 (1995) [Syllabus]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY [Syllabus] Whether a public agency governed by the compensatory time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 207 (o), may absent a preexisting agreement, require its employees to use accrued compensatory time."
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	LEHNERY V. FERRIS FACULTY ASSN., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NLRB V. HEALTH CARE & RETIREMENT CORP., 114 S. CT. 1778, 128 L. ED. 2D 586 (1994) [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	MOREAU V. KLEVENHAGEN, 508 U.S. 22 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AIR COURIER CONFERENCE V. POSTAL WORKERS, 498 U.S. 517 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD. V. COKE [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSN. V. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. O'NEILL, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DOL V. GREENWICH COLLIERIES, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) [Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	MASTERS, MATES, & PILOTS V. BROWN, 498 U.S. 466 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	THUNDER BASIN COAL V. REICH, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). [Syllabus]
	RAGSDALE V. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. [Syllabus] A Labor Department regulation requiring an employer to grant an additional 12 weeks of leave to an employee who has not been informed that a previous absence would be counted as part of the 12 weeks of leave guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is contrary to the Act and beyond the Labor Secretary's authority.
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	AUER V. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK AND WESTERN R. CO. V. TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION, 499 U.S. 117 (1991) [Syllabus]
	IBP, INC. V. ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON [Syllabus] A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
	BREUER V. JIM’S CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC. [Syllabus] Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MERTENS V. HEWITT ASSOCS., 508 U.S. 248 (1993). [Syllabus]
	RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN [Syllabus] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
	NORTH STAR STEEL CO. V. THOMAS, 515 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RUIZ [Syllabus] The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [Syllabus]
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	BENEFICIAL NAT. BANK V. ANDERSON [Syllabus] This Court has long held that section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, creates an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive federal remedy for usury claims by borrowers against national banks, preempting state law under the doctrine of ordinary preemption. Borrowers filed this case against a national bank in state court, claiming violation of state usury law, and the national bank removed the case to federal district court, where a motion to remand was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and explicitly disagreed with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holding that section 30 completely preempts state usury claims against national banks and thus permits removal of cases asserting state usury laws against them. The question presented is:
	HARRIS TRUST AND SAV. BANK V. SALOMONSMITH BARNEY INC. [Syllabus] Whether a non-fiduciary party in interest with respect to an employee benefit plan that engages in a prohibited transaction, as defined in Section 406(a) (1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (""ERISA""), 29 U.S.C. 1106(a)(1), with the plan can be sued under ERISA 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), for ""appropriate equitable relief,"" including restitution."
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LOCAL 144 NURSING HOME PENSION FUND V. DEMISAY, 508 U.S. 581 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SHANNON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 573 (1994). [Syllabus]
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GLOVER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. PEABODY COAL CO. [Syllabus] Although the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operator or related entity, initial assignments made after that date are valid despite their untimeliness.
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	GROVES V. RING SCREW WORKS, FERNDALE DIV., 498 U.S. 168 (1990) [Syllabus]