Over the past two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has been a lead player in shaping the legal landscape for employment discrimination lawyers and their clients, both through the court's action and its inaction.

On June 10, the justices decided Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, a case in the ultra-hot area of class arbitration that--although not an employment case--carries clear implications in the employment context. The decision came a week after the high court surprisingly passed on reviewing a pair of employment discrimination cases that seemed to present weighty questions warranting further consideration.

In Sutter, a breach of contract case, the justices unanimously ruled that when parties agree that an arbitrator should determine whether an agreement authorizes class arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act gives courts only very limited power to review the arbitrator's decision. The justices ultimately decided the arbitrator in Sutter did not exceed his authority under the FAA by determining that a contract between a group of physicians and a health insurance provider allowed for class arbitration of the doctors' breach of contract and other claims against the insurer.

Plaintiffs' counsel in the case said the ruling should ease concerns that class arbitration would become "an extinct procedure" in the wake of recent other decisions by the justices in the class action arena. A management-side attorney, on the other hand, labeled the ruling "a pretty narrow decision," which "may have a limited shelf life" as employers and others drafting arbitration agreements are now more likely to expressly state whether class arbitration is permitted rather than leave the agreement silent on the question.

The two cases the court declined to review presented questions with a more direct impact on employment discrimination law.

In United Air Lines Inc. v. EEOC, the issue was whether an employer violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by permitting disabled employees who are unable to perform their current jobs to apply for reassignment to a vacant position, but then choosing the best qualified candidate even if the disabled individual does not get the job. The other case, Moten v. Broward County Medical Examiner & Trauma Services, involved a conflict in the standards used under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to adjudicate wage discrimination claims.

We are likely to see both of these issues again, and it'll be interesting to see if the justices grant review of either question in the future.

Other recent EEO developments include:

• The U.S. Court for Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that firing a female employee because she is lactating or expressing breast milk at work constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.
• A federal district court in Illinois finding that the state may have violated the ADA when it refused to transfer an arthritic employee to an office nearer to where she was receiving therapy for her condition.
• The commonwealth of Puerto Rico joining 16 other states and the District of Columbia in prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.