Supreme Court Clarifies 'Prevailing Party' Status under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Defers a Decision on the Latest Challenge to the Affordable Care Act's Birth Control Mandate

摘要

This past spring, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which dealt a partial victory for defendant employers by clarifying when a defendant is a "prevailing party" for purposes of the attorney's fee provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.1 On the other hand, the Supreme Court dodged a major decision in Zubik v. Burwell (and the several related and consolidated cases) concerning whether the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate procedures unconstitutionally burden religious employers' religious exercise. Instead, the Supreme Court determined that the parties could work out a fix, and the Courts of Appeal should give them the opportunity to do so. This article describes each case and its implications for employers.