09/ 26/ 2007
NFIB Legal Foundation played key role in important victories
The Supreme Court's 2006–2007 term was particularly kind to the business community, in part due to the NFIB Legal Foundation's work. Experts estimate that at least half of the docket included cases with a substantial business interest. Here's a review of key decisions for small-business owners:
Court Limits Pay Discrimination Claims
In a landmark 5–4 decision, the court enforced the 180-day time limitation for filing a discrimination charge. In Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the threshold question was how many salary reviews the plaintiff could challenge given the requirement that a discrimination charge must be filed within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred."
The NFIB Legal Foundation filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief supporting Goodyear, warning the court that "an employer's ability to tell its story dissipates sharply as time passes. Memories fade; managers quit, retire or die."
The court's determination that there is a limit as to how far back a plaintiff can reach for damages represented an important victory for our members.
Limits on Union Dues Are Upheld
In a key constitutional victory, the court ruled that a Washington state law that requires unions to obtain nonmembers' consent before using union fees for political purposes does not violate the First Amendment. We have long worked to defend limitations that protect nonunion employees from unwittingly or unwillingly financially supporting political causes with which they do not agree. We were a major advocate for the Washington initiative.
The Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief with the court urging that this law be upheld. We argued that there's a long judicial history of prohibiting organizations from forcing nonmembers to support a union's political activities.
Tort Reform Prevails
Can juries impose damages suffered by people who are not parties to the case? To the relief of tort-reform advocates, including us, the Court answered with a resounding "no" in Phillip Morris USA v. Williams. This question—whether defendants can be punished for harm to non-parties—arises in a number of other types of cases, including product liability and environmental litigation.
"In recent years, punitive damages have exploded in both frequency and size, contributing to the out-of-control spiral of the legal system that continues to threaten the livelihood of many small businesses," says Karen Harned, executive director of the Legal Foundation. "The Supreme Court made the right decision. Punishing defendants for harms that have not been tried in court is simply unfair and should be ruled unconstitutional."
What's Next?
Given the Roberts' court propensity for business cases, we are likely to have a number of opportunities to advocate for small business in the upcoming term.
