SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Court says veteran can appeal missed deadline WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a court for veterans shouldn't rigidly enforce deadlines on military vets who suffer from mental illnesses. The high court ruled that Doretha H. Henderson, wife of the late David Henderson, can continue his appeal after he was denied benefits. Henderson's husband was discharged from the armed forces in 1952 after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He asked the Veterans Affairs Department for home care in 2001 and was denied. He missed a 120-day deadline for appeal to a veterans court by 15 days, blaming it on his illness. The veterans court and a federal appeals court agreed that his case was over because Henderson missed the deadline. Henderson died last Oct. 24, and his wife has taken up his case, arguing that Congress meant the benefits system to be helpful to veterans and their benefits claims. The court ruled unanimously that Henderson should be allowed to make the appeal. "The VA is charged with the responsibility of assisting veterans in developing evidence that supports their claims, and in evaluating that evidence, the VA must give the veteran the benefit of any doubt," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous court. "Rigid jurisdictional treatment of the 120-day period for filing a notice of appeal would clash sharply with this scheme." Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in this case because she was involved with it while serving in the solicitor general's office. The case is Henderson v. Shinseki, 09-1036. No personal privacy for business in FOIA By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that corporations have no right of personal privacy to prevent the disclosure of documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 8-0 opinion Tuesday that reversed an appeals court ruling in favor of AT&T. The outcome was notable for its unanimity, especially in view of recent criticism from liberal interest groups that the court tilts too far in favor of business. "The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations," Roberts wrote. "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally." At issue is information gathered by the Federal Communications Commission during an investigation of AT&T's participation in the federal E-Rate program, which helps schools and libraries get Internet access. In December 2004, The telecommunications giant paid $500,000, but admitted no wrongdoing, to resolve allegations that it overcharged the government. Several months later, COMPTEL, a trade group representing some AT&T competitors, sought documents that the FCC obtained in its investigation. AT&T said all the information should remain secret. The federal appeals court in Philadelphia agreed with AT&T, but not a single justice did. Last year, the justices were sharply divided in a decision over the rights of corporations, freeing businesses and unions to spend unlimited sums to influence federal elections. This case, though, turned more on dictionary definitions and practical word usages. "Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always," Roberts said. Thus, even though Congress included corporations in the noun "person" in the FOIA, it does not necessarily follow that "personal" also would apply to them, Roberts said. The word "crab" can refer to "a crustacean and a type of apple," he said. But "crabbed" often is used to describe handwriting that is difficult to read, Roberts said. The decision does not leave corporations totally defenseless under FOIA. Other provisions of the law protect against the release of trade secrets and information that allows people to be personally identified. In the AT&T case, the FCC had released some of the information under an open records request, but withheld other documents because of concerns that business secrets or humans' privacy might be compromised. Justice Elena Kagan, who worked on the dispute when she was at the Justice Department, did not take part in the case. The case is FCC v. AT&T, 09-1279. High court sides with fired Army reservist WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a former hospital lab technician who says his service in the U.S. Army Reserve led to his dismissal. The decision, based on a federal law intended to prevent job discrimination against members of the military, is the first in which the court has ruled that an employer can be held liable for the discriminatory acts of supervisors who do not make final employment decisions. The justices voted 8-0 to throw out a federal appeals court ruling in favor of Proctor Hospital in Peoria, Ill. Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court ordered the appeals court to reconsider the case of Vincent Staub, an angiography technician. A jury awarded Staub $57,640 in damages after it found he was fired because of his military service. Staub was fired in 2004 after 15 years at the hospital. He has been in the Reserves since 1984 and was called to active duty in 2003 to train U.S. soldiers in the Iraq war to set up a radiology unit in a field hospital. The justices said that either the verdict should be reinstated or a new trial should be held. Staub claimed, and the jury found, that his supervisor was out to get him, motivated by what the trial judge described as her "negative opinion of Staub's military service." But a more senior executive, not the supervisor, made the ultimate decision on Staub's employment. The federal appeals court in Chicago said there was no evidence that the decision-maker shared the supervisor's anti-military bias. It threw out the verdict and upheld the firing. "We therefore hold that if a supervisor performs an act motivated by anti-military animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable" under the federal anti-discrimination law for members of the military, Scalia said. It is unclear whether the court's reasoning also would apply to job discrimination claims brought under other federal laws. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case because she worked on it when she served in the Justice Department. The case is Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 09-400. Published: Thu, Mar 3, 2011