The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in its second case involving the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), which is Mississippi ex. rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 12-1036 (see oral argument transcript; SCOTUSblog page).
The Supreme Court will review two of the numerous lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that group health plans and insurers cover, without cost-sharing, contraceptives and/or abortifacients (the “Contraceptive Mandate”).
Of late, there have been some favorable decisions for employers on FLSA class action pleading issues. Now, a losing plaintiff is asking the US Supreme Court to reverse this trend and rule that her action should proceed, notwithstanding that there exists a lack of specific factual details. The plaintiff contends that the high Court should resolve the split in the Circuits on this matter. The case is entitled Dejesus v. HF Management Services.
The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) announced today that it will hear two cases raising questions of whether the Administration has adequately respected a business owner’s freedom of religion in the Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA) regulations when it required that employers provide no cost preventive contraceptive care in employee health insurance: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.
In what is rapidly becoming a trend, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in yet another class action (this time Martin v. Blessing, but one Justice wrote an accompanying opinion to signal where the Court may come out should the issue arise again.