What HR should watch as the Supreme Court begins its new term

Published: 2025-10-06T19:41:00+00:00

Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear — or is considering — several cases this term that could materially affect employment law and HR practice. Key matters include challenges to the removal protections for officials at independent agencies (Slaughter), how multiemployer pension plans calculate withdrawal liability (M & K Employee Solutions), the scope of arbitration exemptions for transportation-related workers (Flowers Foods v. Brock), religious-accommodation conflicts with state mandates (Does 1-2 v. Hochul), potential ADA protections for nondisabled employees (Cook County v. Nawara), and pleading standards in ERISA imprudent-investment claims (Parker-Hannifin v. Johnson). The outcomes could reshape agency independence, regulatory enforcement, pension obligations and employer compliance duties.

Key Points

Slaughter could overturn Humphrey’s Executor and limit removal protections for independent-agency officials, increasing presidential control over agencies that enforce workplace rules (EEOC, NLRB, FTC).
M & K Employee Solutions asks whether actuarial assumptions adopted after the plan year — but based on information as of that year-end — may be used to calculate withdrawal liability; a decision for either side could have major financial consequences for pensioners and employers.
Flowers Foods v. Brock returns the FAA exemption question: do local drivers who deliver goods that travel in interstate commerce qualify as transportation workers exempt from mandatory arbitration?
Does 1-2 v. Hochul could clarify whether state laws that directly conflict with Title VII’s religious-accommodation obligations create an “undue hardship” or are preempted, affecting employer duties when state and federal rules collide.
Cook County v. Nawara may determine whether the ADA protects nondisabled employees from non-job-related medical exams or intrusive inquiries, with implications for medical-request procedures and privacy.
Parker-Hannifin v. Johnson could change what plaintiffs must show in ERISA imprudent-investment suits by focusing on whether the chosen performance benchmark is a suitable comparator.

Context and relevance

These cases intersect core HR responsibilities: regulatory enforcement and agency stability, benefits and pensions, dispute resolution via arbitration, religious and disability accommodation, and retirement-plan litigation. Rulings that curb agency independence or narrow statutory protections would increase legal uncertainty and may prompt changes to policies, contracts and budgeting for benefits and litigation reserves. HR, legal and payroll teams should monitor developments and model potential operational impacts.

Why should I read this?

Quick heads-up: this isn’t just legal nerd stuff — these decisions could change how you handle enforcement notices, defend claims, set benefit costs and deal with accommodation requests. If you work in HR, compliance, payroll or pensions, it pays to know which cases are coming and to start thinking about what you would change if the rules suddenly shift.