dictionary

Charles Bierbauer: Supreme Court rulings on unlawful searches, arbitration, and pension benefits

Charles Bierbauer

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued important decisions in the areas of Fourth Amendment rights, workplace arbitration and pension benefits. Hospitals cannot give women blood tests then give police the results without the women’s informed consent. Mandatory workplace arbitration is enforceable, even if the employee is required to agree to arbitration to obtain the job. And, in a cautionary tale, the Court ruled that an ex-wife is the lawful beneficiary of her ex-husband’s pension and insurance.

Q: Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ferguson v. City of Charleston an important victory for women’s rights advocates?

Bierbauer: Women’s rights advocates are claiming a major victory as a result of the Supreme Court ruling that testing pregnant women at a public hospital and then turning positive drug results over to the police was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search.

DOCUMENT Read the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Ferguson v. City of Charleston  TRANSCRIPTS • Catherine Christophillis of the South Carolina attorney general's office • Attorney Jennifer Granick discusses the legal reasoning behind the case (October 13, 2000)

IN-DEPTH • Justice Profiles • Supreme Court Home Page

LEGAL RESOURCES   FindLaw Supreme Court Center   • Court History   • The Justices   • Landmark Decisions FindLaw opinion database: Supreme Court opinions from 1893-2002 Search by party: Search by full-text:

Q: Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens said that the law was primarily designed to "generate evidence for law enforcement purposes." Had the health of the mother been the primary objective, might the court have issued a different ruling?

Bierbauer: That’s conceivable because the law recognizes what is called "special needs." But the justices found that the police were so intricately involved in the hospital program that the needs of either protecting of fetus or getting the women into drug treatment appeared to be secondary to the law enforcement objectives. Justice Stevens also wrote, "the reasonable expectation of privacy…is that the results of those tests will not be shared with non-medical personnel without (the woman’s) consent." It is a rather clear-cut ruling on Fourth Amendment grounds.

Q: What effect does this ruling have for the women involved?

Bierbauer: This case now goes back to the 4th Circuit Court in Richmond, Virginia to assess whether the general consent form which the women signed upon entering the hospital was sufficient for the hospital to proceed as it did. In the case that was decided, the question before the Court was whether giving police the drug test results was a violation of the women’s Fourth Amendment rights, not whether the consent form they signed was lawful. If the women succeed in the next court round, they would be entitled to seek damages from the Charleston hospital.

Q: Chief Justice Rehnquist joined Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissenting from the decision. Does this tell us anything about the direction of the Court this term?

Bierbauer: The three justices in dissent on this case frequently unite in positions that are favorable to law enforcement, but they still constitute only a minority. The question that frequently arises these days is how could the Court’s philosophy change if President Bush were to appoint new justices. President Bush has said that he admires Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, but if the Chief Justice were to retire, and he is one of the more likely candidates to do so, replacing Mr. Rehnquist would not dramatically alter the direction of the Court. You would still have a critical middle in which Justices Kennedy and O’Connor are the key votes on issues that divide the conservative and liberal wings of the Court.

Q: Mandatory workplace arbitration was also upheld by the Supreme Court. Is this a big a setback for employees?

Bierbauer: It is certainly looked upon by businesses as a victory because they can enforce arbitration and keep themselves out of court. It is not a big setback for workers because nothing compels workers to sign the agreement for arbitration, unless you desperately need a job. Arbitration is a legitimate way for resolving workplace disputes. In a case heard earlier this term, labor unions were quite pleased when the Court ruled in an arbitration case that a union member had to be reinstated. So, it would seem to depend on the circumstances of a particular case. The court is not judging whether arbitration is anti-employee, but whether this is a binding element between employee and employer.

Workplace arbitration stems from the Federal Arbitration Act, which was designed to reduce litigation. In writing for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that for the Court to have ruled any other way in this case would have increased the number of lawsuits

Q: The case of Egelhoff v. Egelhoff involved pension benefits and ex-spouses. Is this a cautionary tale for all of us?

Bierbauer: Yes. Usually when we get an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) case, we all cringe because the Act is a large, bureaucratic policy that deals with employee retirement benefits. What makes this case interesting, useful and instructive is that it involves a circumstance most people hope they never encounter, but can relate to – the family feud.

The case arises because a few weeks after David and Donna Egelhoff divorced in 1994, he was killed in an accident. He died without ever changing the beneficiary on his pension and insurance benefits at Boeing, and he died intestate, or without a will.

His ex-wife claimed the pension and insurance benefits, and federal law agreed with her. Eglehoff’s grown children from his first marriage also claimed the benefits, and state law agreed with them because of the divorce.

The U.S. Supreme Court said this is a case where federal law trumps state law, so the ex-wife must be awarded the pension and insurance. Part of the reasoning is to avoid the patchwork of state laws dealing with such benefits. This is welcomed news for companies such as Boeing so they do not have to have their human resources departments dealing with various state laws controlling employee benefits.

The moral of this case is if your life situation changes, be sure to check your beneficiaries and make the appropriate adjustments. The situation in this case is something that anyone can fall into, but it can create unintended consequences for your survivors.

Court: Consent needed to drug-test pregnant women
March 21, 2001
Court: Employers can force arbitration in disputes
March 21, 2001
Court rules on case about divorced couple pension benefits
March 21, 2001

Supreme Court of the United States
FindLaw Supreme Court Center
Legal Information Institute: Supreme Court Collection - Cornell University
On the Docket 2000-2001
The Supreme Court Historical Society
Jurist Guide to the Supreme Court - University of Pittsburgh
History of the Federal Judiciary

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.