This is the second of two columns examining decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court during its 2008-09 term impacting the area of labor and employment law. This month we look at decisions regarding whether discarding test results which appeared to disparately impact minorities constitutes unlawful reverse discrimination; the appropriate burden of proof for disparate treatment claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); whether common law waiver of plan benefits is effective under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA) when the waiver is inconsistent with plan documents; and the proper standard for determining whether a federal court has jurisdiction to compel arbitration under §4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Read the first column on this term’s High Court rulings.

‘Reverse’ Discrimination

In Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 SCt 2658 (2009), a 5-4 majority of the Court held that the City of New Haven, Conn., unlawfully discriminated on the basis of race when it refused to certify results of promotional exams in which white firefighters outperformed their minority colleagues. The Court rejected the city’s argument that it disregarded the test results to avoid violating Title VII’s disparate impact provisions.