Monday status conference: the holiday-late edition

Yes, we know it’s not Monday – but it is the beginning of the holiday-delayed workweek for many (including DC Dicta), and we hope you all spent yesterday reflecting on Dr. King’s legacy.

Meanwhile,

Friday afternoon was a busy one for the Supreme Court. Not only did the justices take a pass on presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich’s request for help with his Texas situation, the took a look at a petition filed by a class of investors who lost more than $1 billion in the Enron scandal. In the filing by petitioners in California Regents v. Merrill Lynch, 06-1341, the investors seek to distinguish themselves from the holding in Stoneridge, saying civil actions against financial actors should be allowed under the Securities Exchange Act. The Court took up the matter during its conference Friday, and could decided whether to grant the writ of certiorari as early as today.

The Court also granted certiorari in six cases, including an employment discrimination case asking whether the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects a worker from dismissal because she cooperated with her employer’s internal investigation of sexual harassment. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, No. 06-1595. More here from the AP.

The Court also agreed to decide whether smokers of cigarettes marketed as “light” could sue the makers for deception on the grounds that they were just as harmful as regular cigarettes. That case is Philip Morris v. Good, No. 07-562. More here from AFP.

The Court will consider whether an employee alleging disparate impact under the ADEA bears the burden of persuasion on the “reasonable factors other than age” defense in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505

The Court decided to take up the issue of whether a claim administrator of an ERISA plan who also funds the plan benefits creates a “conflict of interest,” and if so how should that conflict be taken into account on judicial review of a discretionary benefit determination in Metlife et al. v. Glenn, No. 06-923.

More on Friday’s orders in this nifty roundup, complete with links to filings, here on SCOUTSBlog.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: