Employment-Related 2025-2026 SCOTUS Docket Cases
On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) began its new term. The Court, in its 2025-2026 docket, is set to decide several cases which will have widespread effects on a vast number of employers, including private contractors and schools.
In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Court will decide whether states may ban transgender high school and college athletes from participating in female sporting competitions.[1] The Court initially declined to review this issue in 2023, but is poised to reconsider, likely with a decision forthcoming in 2026. That the Court is reconsidering this issue suggests that major changes to the country’s upper school sports landscape are likely to occur. This decision will primarily impact schools and other athletic organizations.
The Court is also set to decide whether a government contractor can immediately appeal a court order denying its claim that it has derivative sovereign immunity for certain work that it performs on behalf of the federal government in Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal.[2] Currently, the general rule (collateral-order) states that only final judgments are appealable. Geo Group argued that if derivative sovereign immunity rights are not vindicated before trial, the decision will discourage individuals from working for the federal government (or a private contractor). The Court will hear oral arguments in this case on November 10, 2025.
Additionally, there are two cases that the Court could add to its docket. In Cook County v. Nawara, the Court would determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would hold an employer liable for discrimination based on disability where the employee has no physical or mental impairment and is not regarded as having such an impairment.[3] The plaintiff in this case, a correctional officer, claimed that Cook County violated the ADA by requesting that he take a fitness-for-duty examination based on his behavior at work. In Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Johnson, an employer and 401(k) sponsor has asked the Court to resolve a circuit split over whether pleading an imprudent-investment claim under the Employee Retirement Social Security Act (ERISA), based on how the investment’s returns compared to performance benchmarks, requires showing that the benchmark is a sound basis for comparison.[4]
Stay tuned by following the ILG newsletter to receive updates on these key employment law cases.
[1] https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/employer-preview-of-top-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-this-term.html
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.