In two employment cases, one involving race and the other, age, the court took an expansive view of workers' rights and avoided the narrow, ideology-based decisions that marked its previous term.

The justices read parts of an 1860s civil rights act and the main anti-age bias law to include the right to sue over reprisals even though neither provision expressly prohibits retaliation.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court in a case involving a black employee at a Cracker Barrel restaurant who was fired, said that previous Supreme Court decisions and congressional action make clear that retaliation is covered.

The idea that a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, known as section 1981, "encompasses retaliation claims is indeed well-embedded in the law," Breyer said in the 7-2 ruling.

Federer improved to 16-3 on clay in 2008 by beating Sam Querrey of the United States 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 Monday in the first round of the French Open, where he is trying to become only the sixth man to complete a career Grand Slam.

"I've played well all clay-court season long," said the top-ranked Federer, who is 27-7 overall this year. "Didn't have many hiccups really, and I have plenty of matches. That was my goal as well."

Federer came into the French Open with only one title this year, which he won on clay. His seven losses are more than he had for the entire season in 2004, '05 and '06.

On Tuesday, the start of play was delayed by rain for 2 hours, 50 minutes. Rafael Nadal was scheduled to begin his quest for a fourth straight French Open title against Thomaz Bellucci of Brazil. Nikolay Davydenko, Lleyton Hewitt and 2003 champion Juan Carlos Ferrero were also to play.

Maria Sharapova and Amelie Mauresmo were to play in the women's tournament.

Federer was broken once early in the first set Monday, but he managed to win five times on Querrey's serve.

The justices have no comment on their action, in response to Ryan's claim that he and his fellow defendant, businessman Larry Warner did not receive a fair trial.

Their lawyers argued that the trial judge replaced two jurors with alternates after deliberations in the case had already begun.

Ryan, 74, is serving a 6 1/2 year sentence in federal prison.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier upheld the convictions.

The court said in a 7-2 ruling that retaliation is another form of intentional, unlawful discrimination that is barred by the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was enacted to benefit newly freed blacks.

Business groups objected that the law does not expressly prohibit retaliation and said employees should have to file suit under another law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law has a shorter deadline for filing suit and caps the amount of money that a successful plaintiff may recover.

The Bush administration was on the side of the workers.

The provision of the 1866 law, known as section 1981, does not explicitly mention retaliation.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, in his majority opinion, said that previous Supreme Court decisions and congressional action make clear that retaliation is covered.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The case grew out of the firing of a black associate manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Bradley, Ill. Hedrick Humphries claimed he was fired after he complained about race discrimination by other Cracker Barrel supervisors.

In a 7-2 ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says Gov. Bob Riley did not need advance approval from the federal government to fill the vacancy.

The case involves a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that requires Alabama and several other states — most of them in the South — to get federal approval before changing election procedures that affect minority voters.

Ginsburg says the issue in this case is a narrow one that does not have broader application to voting rights disputes.

The court ruled Tuesday 6-3 that a U.S. Postal Service employee may pursue her lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The law does specifically bars reprisals against private sector employees who complain about discrimination. But it is silent as to federal workers. Justice Samuel Alito said in the ruling that the law indeed does apply to both categories of employees.

The latest tussle over who has legitimate claim to what's "sexy" in tresses came late Friday, when Victoria's Secret filed court papers challenging a federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruling in favor of Sexy Hair Concepts LLC.

The board concluded in April 2007 that consumers were likely to confuse the lingerie giant's "So Sexy" trademark for hair-care items with Sexy Hair Concepts' various trademarks using the word "sexy" for its own coiffure line.

In papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Victoria's Secret said it wants the court to consider a study it conducted. The survey found only five of 308 people who bought hair-care products associated the word "sexy" with a single company and made any reference to Sexy Hair Concepts and its offerings.

The Columbus, Ohio-based company that also introduced the Very Sexy bra said its study proves "that the word `sexy' has not acquired distinctiveness among purchasers of hair care products."

Thus, it added, Sexy Hair Concepts "is not the owner of a family of trademarks in the word 'sexy.'"

In court papers filed earlier this month, Sexy Hair Concepts said it had used "Sexy Hair" to describe hair-care items since 1998. The company said it packages and promotes the "sexy" family of products to give "sexy" a distinctive commercial impression.

Sexy Hair Concepts applied to protect its trademarks for the "sexy" product line in November 2001, well before Victoria's Secret began testing some of its "So Sexy" coiffure products in April 2003, said Sexy Hair Concepts, based in Chatsworth, Calif.

Victoria's Secret has appealed the trademark board's ruling to a federal judge, who is considering only whether the board ruled correctly.

Sexy Hair said it sells tens of millions of dollars' worth of "Sexy Hair" products annually.

Earlier this year, Victoria's Secret chief executive Sharen Turney said her company might have become "too sexy" for its own good.

"We've so much gotten off our heritage ... too sexy, and we use the word sexy a lot and really have forgotten the ultra feminine," Turney told industry analysts.