While the U.S. Supreme Court issued significant decisions that likely will change the legal landscape for employment discrimination attorneys and their clients, there is the risk that important lower federal court rulings may fly under the radar.

The Supreme Court this week decided two closely watched cases involving the potentially game-changing issues of who is a "supervisor" under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what is the proper standard of proof of causation in a Title VII retaliation case.

In both Vance v. Ball State University--the "supervisor" case--and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar--the retaliation case--the justices reached 5-4 holdings favorable to employers, finding that a "supervisor" under Title VII is someone with the power to take tangible employment action, such as termination or demotion, against a co-worker, and that Title VII retaliation plaintiffs must produce proof of "but-for" cause to prevail.

The decisions came two weeks after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in an antitrust case nixing the plaintiffs' bid to pursue class arbitration, which is widely viewed as favorable to employers.

But while the Supreme Court decisions are rightly grabbing headlines, employers, employees, and their legal counsel should not overlook recent potentially significant lower court rulings.  Two examples are the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois's decision in Blickle v. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana's decision in Butler v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

In Blickle, the court held that the state of Illinois may have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it failed to transfer an arthritic state worker to a city closer to her doctor's office so she could receive physical therapy after work. In Butler, the court found that evidence that a Louisiana state trooper may have been actually disabled was irrelevant to his "regarded as" disabled claim under the ADA.

Other recent EEO developments include:

• A federal district court in Tennessee asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to decide if a subset of the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees rejected for class status by the U.S. Supreme Court in a sex bias case should be allowed to pursue their otherwise untimely claims as a smaller subclass.

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was issued final judgment of approximately $3.4 million in damages, back pay, interest, and court costs in its successful ADA lawsuit against a now-defunct Iowa turkey processing facility that abused mentally disabled employees.