ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

Supreme Court hears Ashcroft immunity, pregnancy discrimination cases

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

ADVERTISEMENTS
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in two cases. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Court heard arguments on whether high-ranking US officials are protected by qualified immunity from suit for alleged religious and ethnic discrimination by their subordinates. Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani national detained during a terror sweep after the 9/11 attacks, filed a lawsuit against former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and other officials, alleging that he was subjected to abuse during his detention in a Brooklyn jail because of his religion and ethnicity. The US Appeals Court for the Second Circuit allowed the lawsuit to go forward, but the Bush administration appealed the ruling, arguing that the officials were protected from suit for the acts of their subordinates. Counsel for petitioners argued that "these allegedly discriminatory determinations, classifications, were made by FBI officials in the field, not Petitioners here, the former Attorney General and director of the FBI. Counsel for the respondents argued that petitioners not only knew about, but approved the policy. In AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, the Court heard arguments on whether maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act can be considered in calculating employee pensions. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that AT&T violated the act by failing to award employees credit for time taken off work for maternity leave before 1978. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the claims are stale and that the employees had fair and adequate notice of the employer's actions. Counsel for respondents argued that this is discrimination within a seniority system that gives "unequal credit for equal service."

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on December 10, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0131 secs (new cache)