Samuel Alito's rulings haven't always fallen under a strictly conservative banner. In some he has shown sympathy for individuals who depend on the goodwill of powerful institutions, and in others he has defended civil rights. His reasoning has often been very technical. A few cases worth noting:
•MONDZELEWSKI V. PATHMARK (1998) In support of a butcher who claimed to have been treated unfairly by his employer, Pathmark, Alito's broad interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) led him to conclude that Joseph Mondzelewski's back injury constituted a serious limitation that entitled him to ADA workplace protections. Writing for the majority, Alito ruled that Pathmark wrongfully punished Mondzelewski by reprimanding him unreasonably and giving him the worst working shifts.
•WILLIAMS V. PRICE (2003) Alito's decision overturned a lower-court ruling that denied a new hearing for Ronald Williams, a defendant convicted of first-degree murder, even after a juror was overheard making a racist remark immediately after the trial. Alito reasoned that the comment, made outside the jury room, had not been justifiably excluded from consideration by the lower court. Alito's opinion granted Williams the right to argue that his imprisonment had been unlawful.
•SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA GROWTH ALLIANCE V. CAROL BROWNER (1997) Alito's opinion denied an attempt by manufacturers to void the Environmental Protection Agency's regional ozone standards. Alito determined that the agency had acted within its authority in enforcing local Clean Air Act rules, despite concerns that the environmental regulations could significantly affect manufacturers' operating costs.