Important employment rulings handed down by the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down two significant employment law rulings June 10. The first ruling relaxed the deadlines for employees to file a claim of hostile work environment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The second case involved a disabled person who wanted a job that would pose a direct threat to himself but not to others.

The first case addressed the requirement that employees file an EEOC complaint within 180 or 300 days after the allegedly discriminatory event occurred, or else they cannot proceed with a lawsuit based on that claim. For the first time, the court ruled that these deadlines should be more flexible for a case of hostile work environment as opposed to cases of discrimination or retaliation.

In the case before the court, the employee alleged both discrimination and a racially hostile environment. Some of his allegations occurred more than 300 days before the employee's EEOC complaint. The Supreme Court held that an employee raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts must file this charge within the appropriate 180- or 300-day period.

On the other hand, a lawsuit alleging a hostile work environment will not be time-barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period. This is because by its very nature, a hostile environment involves repeated conduct, which cannot usually be said to occur on any given day. Therefore, courts may need to review all alleged conduct even if it occurred outside of the time period. National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan.

In the second case, the Supreme Court grappled with the concept of "direct threat" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, it's clear that you can refuse to hire a disabled applicant for a job where he would pose a direct threat to others. An EEOC regulation went further, saying that you could reject a disabled applicant if the job would pose a direct threat to himself but not to others.

The man in this case has a medical condition that made him particularly vulnerable to the environmental hazards of a job he wanted. When the company turned him down, he sued, claiming that the EEOC's regulation went too far. A unanimous Supreme Court sided with the employer, ruling that the regulation is valid. The court said it can be a proper business necessity to exclude workers whose disabilities may harm them on the job. Chevron U.S. & NBSP Inc., v. Echazabal.