United States: Supreme Court Decision Alert - May 24, 2010

Originally published May 24, 2010

Keywords: single entity immunity, American Needle, NFL, licensing agreement, EEOC charge, ERISA, attorney fees

Today the Supreme Court issued three decisions, described below, of interest to the business community.

  • Antitrust—"Single Entity" Immunity
  • Title VII—Time Limit to File EEOC Charge
  • ERISA—Attorney's Fees

Antitrust—"Single Entity" Immunity

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, No. 08-661 (previously discussed in the June 29, 2009 Docket Report)

In a decision that could prove significant to all businesses that engage in joint ventures and other cooperative enterprises, the Supreme Court ruled today in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, No. 08-661, that the National Football League (NFL) does not constitute a "single enterprise" for antitrust purposes, holding instead that the league's 32 constituent teams are separate enterprises when it comes to selling branded items like caps. 

In 2000, the NFL entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Reebok International Ltd. to produce caps and other headwear bearing the trademarks or logos of NFL teams.  As a result, other vendors, including American Needle, lost their licenses. American Needle sued, claiming that because each NFL team owns its own logos and marks, the exclusive agreement was a conspiracy to restrain competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade. In response, the NFL, relying on Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984), argued that the league and its teams, like a parent and its subsidiary corporations, constitute a "single entity for antitrust purposes." American Needle, Inc. v. NFL, 538 F.3d 736, 738 (7th Cir. 2008). The district court agreed, granting summary judgment to the NFL, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the NFL's joint licensing of team trademarks may be challenged under the Sherman Act. The Court explained that in analyzing concerted action under the Act, the "relevant inquiry is whether there is a 'contract, combination . . . or conspiracy' amongst 'separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests,' such that the agreement 'deprives the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking and therefore of diversity of entrepreneurial interests.'" Slip op. 10 (internal citations omitted). Applying that test to the NFL, the Court found that each of the league's constituent teams is "a substantial, independently owned, and independently managed business" and that each competes with the others "not only on the playing field, but . . . in the market for intellectual property." Id. at 12. Characterizing the various teams as "potentially competing suppliers of valuable trademarks," the Court found that when licensing their respective trademarks, the teams are "not pursuing the 'common interests of the whole' league" but are instead "acting as 'separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests.'" Id. Accordingly, the Court concluded, the fact that the league's teams depend on cooperation among themselves did not make them a single enterprise immune from antitrust liability.

* * * * * * * * * *

Title VII—Time Limit to File EEOC Charge

Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974 (previously discussed in the September 30, 2009 docket report)

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff suing for employment discrimination must have first filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) "within 300 days after the unlawful employment practice occurred." 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(e)(1). Today, in Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who does not file a timely EEOC charge challenging the adoption of a practice may nevertheless assert a disparate-impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer's later application of that practice, as long as the plaintiff alleges each element of a disparate-impact claim.

Petitioners, plaintiffs below, are a class of African-Americans who applied for positions as firefighters for the City of Chicago. To select firefighters, the City administered an examination in 1995 that sorted applicants into three categories: "not qualified," "qualified," and "well qualified." "Well qualified" and "qualified" applicants were placed on an eligibility list to be drawn from in the future, should the need arise, although first priority was given to "well qualified" applicants. From 1996 until 2002, the City selected nine classes of applicants from the eligibility list; only in the last round did the City extend offers to "qualified" applicants.

Petitioners, who were classified as "qualified," contended that the exam had a disparate impact and thus violated Title VII. After filing a charge with the EEOC in 1997 and receiving right-to-sue letters, petitioners filed suit in district court, obtained class certification, and ultimately prevailed on the merits. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the suit was untimely because petitioners filed the EEOC charge more than 300 days after their test scores were sorted into categories.

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court reasoned that the real issue in the case was not timeliness, but whether "the City's practice of picking only those [deemed 'well qualified' based] on the 1995 examination when it later chose applicants to advance . . . can be the basis for a disparate-impact claim at all." Slip op. 4-5. The Court answered that question yes, concluding that petitioners' claims satisfy the requirements of Title VII's disparate-impact provision, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). And because "the acts petitioners challenge—the City's use of its cutoff score in selecting candidates—occurred within the charging period," slip op. 6, the Court held that petitioners' suit was timely.

The Court rejected the City's argument that, because petitioners did not timely challenge the first act that caused the disparate impact (that is, the 1995 test itself), claims involving subsequent effects of that act are likewise barred. Because a disparate-impact claim does not require proof of discriminatory intent, the Court determined that the hiring decisions within the limitations period constituted new violations that triggered new liability. Accordingly, the Court held, plaintiffs who allege disparate-impact claims under Title VII need not complain of the first act from which subsequent violations flow; each new violation actionable under Title VII renews the 300-day limitation period.

The Court's decision in Lewis is a significant one for companies covered by Title VII. Under the decision, plaintiffs may be able to proceed with disparate-impact suits challenging well-established and facially neutral practices that employers have used regularly for years, and evidence essential to employers' defenses (such as business necessity) may be unavailable (or at least unreliable) by the time the later suits are filed. The Court acknowledged these "practical problems" for employers, slip op. 10, but observed that the contrary reading of the statute could cause a different set of problems for plaintiffs and that, in any event, any problems caused by the Court's interpretation are for Congress to fix.

* * * * * * * * * *

ERISA—Attorney's Fees

Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 09-448 (previously discussed in the January 15, 2010 docket report).

Section 502(g)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides that "a reasonable attorney's fee and costs" are available to "either party" at the discretion of the court. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). Today, in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., No. 09-448, the Supreme Court held that this provision does not require that the fee claimant be a "prevailing party" and that a district court may award fees and costs as long as the claimant has "achieved some degree of success on the merits." Slip op. 9, 12. The Court's decision is important to all businesses that maintain ERISA plans, because it rejects the stricter standard for the award of attorney's fees that had been applied by some lower courts, including the Fourth Circuit in this case.

The petitioner in Hardt had filed for long-term disability benefits, which the respondent (Reliance) initially denied. After exhausting her administrative remedies, Hardt sued under ERISA. The district court remanded for further review by Reliance, holding that Reliance's decision did not comply with ERISA because it was based on incomplete information. While expressing an inclination to rule in Hardt's favor in light of compelling evidence of disability, the district court ordered Reliance to consider all the relevant evidence and act on it within 30 days, or else face judgment in favor of Hardt. After conducting the required review, Reliance approved Hardt's disability claim and paid her benefits.

Hardt then moved for attorney's fees and costs under Section 502(g)(1). The district court granted the motion, concluding that Hardt was a "prevailing party," and thus potentially entitled to attorney's fees under Fourth Circuit precedent, because, although she had not won a judgment, the court's remand order materially changed the parties' legal relationship in Hardt's favor. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that a claimant qualifies as a "prevailing party" only by securing a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree.

In an opinion by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court reversed. The court first held that Section 502(g)(1) does not limit the availability of attorney's fees to "prevailing parties," a phrase that appears nowhere in the provision. Noting that another ERISA provision governing attorney's fees (which is not applicable in this case) does expressly limit such awards to plaintiffs who obtain a judgment, the Court concluded that there was no basis for the Fourth Circuit's imposition of a similar requirement under Section 502(g)(1). The Court went on to hold that, to recover attorney's fees under Section 502(g)(1), the claimant must show "some degree of success on the merits" that is more than trivial and not purely a procedural victory. Slip op. 12. The Court concluded that this standard was satisfied here, because Hardt persuaded the district court that she was likely to prevail and that Reliance had failed to comply with ERISA. The Court's opinion was unanimous, except for one part of the opinion that was joined by all members of the Court but Justice Stevens, who wrote a one-paragraph concurrence.

Please visit us at www.appellate.net.

Copyright 2010. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown International LLP, Mayer Brown JSM and/or Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. All rights reserved.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions