The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear three UVA clinic cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases involving clients represented by University of Virginia School of Law clinics.

Two of the cases are from the Supreme Court Trial Clinic. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Social Services, a former state employee claims they faced discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The other case, Cunningham v. Cornell University, concerns pension plans and fiduciary claims. The third case, Perttu v. Richards, comes from UVA Law’s Appeals clinic and questions whether prisoners are entitled to a jury trial when it comes to exhausting their administrative remedies.

Claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation

In the case of Ames Marlean Ames alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation and sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ames, a heterosexual woman who was supervised by a homosexual woman, was denied a promotion and later demoted. A gay woman filled the promoted position and a gay man replaced Ames in her former role. Both the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed her claim before it went to trial.

The case could help clarify how to handle discrimination claims from claimants who are not members of a minority group, highlighting conflicting opinions from different courts.

Attorney Edward Gilbert represented Ames in court and before the Sixth Circuit and is co-counsel as the case moves to the Supreme Court. UVA professor Xiao Wang, who directs the Supreme Court’s Litigation Clinic, contacted Gilbert to provide the clinic with relief following the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

Wang said the case opens the door for the justices to embrace a uniform standard for Title VII lawsuits.

“We believe that whatever the test for discrimination, it should apply equally to groups and to individuals,” he said.

Retirement plan fiduciary claims

In the Cunningham case, current and former employees sued Cornell University and its designated fiduciaries for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. By law, fiduciaries are prohibited from engaging in certain “prohibited transactions,” including any direct or indirect exchange of goods, services or facilities between the retirement plan and anyone with a vested interest in that plan. Although the workers pointed to such transactions in their complaint, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed their class action, ruling that their allegations were not strong enough to proceed. The Eighth and Ninth Circuits have ruled differently in other cases, creating yet another division among the courts.

This was said by the co-counsel of the employees at the law firm Schlicter Bogard to the Cunningham The case is an important one for pension plans nationwide and represents one of many brought by the company on behalf of employees. They said the company’s work on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act has had a significant impact on reducing the benefits employees and retirees pay.

Prisoners’ rights

In the Perttu case, inmate Kyle Brandon Richards appealed a district court’s decision to dismiss his civil rights case. The court alleged that he had not completed the required steps in the administrative process outlined in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Professor Scott Ballenger, director of the Appellate Litigation Clinic, explained that “there are incredibly short filing deadlines for filing a prison complaint and then multiple levels of appeals, also with very short filing deadlines,” and that “if you don’t is absolutely right, you lose your claim in prison, but you also lose your claim in court.”

Richards claims prison staff retaliated against him for his abuse claims by tearing up his complaint forms in prison. But the court held a hearing – without a jury – and found the officers more credible.