Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Lisa Leake, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-15320 · judgment April 29, 2024


Certiorari denied · October 21, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and counsel who has filed here before, and down for a business respondent.

Questions presented

At the motion to dismiss phase of a proceeding for claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:

  1. Must a group of plaintiffs who demonstrate in their pleadings that they have experienced employment harm for not meeting an employment condition that violates their religious beliefs compare their treatment to other employees who have met the condition, or other employees who have not met the condition for other, non-religious reasons?

  2. Must a group of plaintiffs alleging a hostile work environment demonstrate that their employer engaged in harassing behavior because of the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class, or is it enough for a group of plaintiffs to demonstrate that they experienced workplace communications as harassment because of the nature of their religious beliefs, and their employer’s lack of sensitivity to those beliefs?

  3. When a group of plaintiffs indicates in detail at the appeal stage that there has been a long-standing breakdown with their attorney resulting in dramatic misrepresentations of the facts in the proceeding and the legal theories of the case, should the appeals court remand the case for amended pleadings consistent with the plaintiffs’ expressed desires for the case? In other words, should an appeals court issue a judgment when they know the plaintiffs’ attorney has the facts wrong and has not brought apparently colorable claims the plaintiffs have indicated that they would like the court to consider?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Edward Scott Lloyd
Law Office of E. Scott Lloyd, PLLC

For respondent
Dawn Reddy Solowey
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 21 2024
    Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
  2. Oct 02 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2024.
  3. Sep 16 2024
    Brief of respondent Raytheon Technologies Corporation in opposition filed.
  4. Jul 29 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 16, 2024)