US Supreme Court grants review to bankruptcy, overtime pay and federal civil rights cases News
MarkThomas / Pixabay
US Supreme Court grants review to bankruptcy, overtime pay and federal civil rights cases

The US Supreme Court Monday granted review to three cases spanning questions of bankruptcy, overtime pay and federal civil rights claims. The three cases will be heard in oral arguments during the Court’s fall 2022 session.

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the court will consider whether a bankruptcy debtor may be held liable for someone else’s fraud, even when they are barred from discharge in bankruptcy suit for using false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The case arose when Kieran Buckley sued a couple for failing to disclose a variety of problems with a house the couple sold to Buckley. Defendant Kate Marie Bartenwerfer seeks to discharge the judgment against her because she claims she was not aware of the fraud to Buckley. A lower court sided with Buckley and held that Bartenwerfer could not be discharged because the debt was obtained through fraud. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth District remanded the case back to the district court which then reversed, finding Bartenwerfer could be discharged because she did not have requisite knowledge of fraud to be held liable. Buckley again appealed the decision.

Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt  revolves around the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which establishes working and payment standards for employees. The Court will consider whether a supervisor who makes over $200,000 a year is entitled to overtime pay under 29 C.F.R. § 541.604, despite an exemption in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 for highly paid executives. Michael Hewitt claims that he is entitled to overtime pay, but Helix Energy Solutions Group claims that Hewitt is exempt from overtime pay as a highly compensated executive employee. However, employees must be paid on a salary basis to fit within the exemption.  Hewitt claims that because he is paid a daily wage he does not fall under the exemption. The lower court granted Helix Energy Solutions Group summary judgment. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case in favor of Hewitt.

In Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski, the Court will consider whether it should reexamine prior holdings that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 gives rise to privately enforceable rights under the Article I Spending Clause. The Court must also consider whether the Federal Nursing Home Amendments Act (FNHAA) gives rise to those private rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a US federal statute that grants individuals the right to civil action for the deprivation of their rights. The case was first brought by Gorgi Talevski after his conditions worsened under the care of a state-run nursing facility in Indiana. Talevski tried to bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the nursing facility violated parts of the FNHAA. The lower court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, finding the FNHAA does not provide a private right of action that is redressable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the FNHAA provides privately enforceable rights upon nursing facility residents, like Talevski.