Current Events > Supreme Court rules that employers can bar worker class-action suits

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-21/supreme-court-says-employers-can-bar-worker-class-action-suits

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use individual arbitration instead of class-action lawsuits to press legal claims, Bloomberg News reports.

The decision potentially limits the rights of tens of millions of employees.

Gorsuch penned the majority opinion
---

Well I'm glad I got out while the getting was good
---

well fuck.
---

Another ruling in favor of employers over employees, fair next
---

were making america great again
---

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

were making america great again

We'll get back to the Gilded Age no matter what.
---

I need the specifics of the decision before I want to say good or bad. Just a blurb about arbitration isnt enough.

DrizztLink posted...

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

were making america great again

We'll get back to the Gilded Age no matter what.

Just what I was about to type, Gilded Age and Robber Barons
---

Justice Neil Gorsuch

"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written,"

---

Cal12 posted...

I need the specifics of the decision before I want to say good or bad. Just a blurb about arbitration isnt enough.

reading the blurb makes it sound like the arbitrartion is only for the scope of the employment contract.

essentially it means that if you want to file a class action suit against a company you'll have to resign.
---

Full article now:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use individual arbitration instead of class-action lawsuits to press legal claims. The decision potentially limits the rights of tens of millions of employees.

The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, said for the first time Monday that employers can enforce arbitration agreements signed by workers, even if those accords bar group claims. The majority rejected contentions that federal labor law guarantees workers the right to join forces in pressing claims.

The ruling builds on previous Supreme Court decisions that let companies channel disputes with consumers and other businesses into arbitration. The latest decision applies directly to workers wage-and-hour claims, and its reasoning might let employers avoid class action job-discrimination suits as well.

"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

Arbitration supporters say that forum is cheaper and more efficient than traditional litigation. Critics say companies are trying to strip individuals of important rights, including the ability to band together on claims that as a practical matter are too small to press individually.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. Ginsburg called the ruling "egregiously wrong."

"The inevitable result of todays decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers," Ginsburg wrote.

The workers in the case said the National Labor Relations Act guarantees them the right to press claims as a group, either in arbitration or in court. The 1935 law protects "concerted activities" by workers, without explicitly mentioning lawsuits.

The majority said that language wasnt specific enough to overcome a separate 1925 law that says arbitration agreements must be enforced like any other contract.

About 25 million employees have signed arbitration accords that bar group claims, a lawyer for the workers in the case told the court.

---

"Ha ha take that liberals" - Intelligent Trump supporters probably
---

This is fucking ridiculous.
---

Why would you ever bring a class action suit against your employer? You would always sue them individually.

This ruling is a whole lot of nothing.
---

Frostshock posted...

Why would you ever bring a class action suit against your employer? You would always sue them individually.

For things like this:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-sue-your-employer_us_5afb2bcde4b09a94524ca8f3?yfm

A former Murphy Oil employee, Sheila Hobson, claimed that when she worked at one of the companys retail stores, she and her colleagues were required to do off-the-clock work they werent compensated for. They got together to sue the company for back pay. But when they consulted a lawyer, they learned they couldnt take Murphy Oil to court as a group because they had already agreed to arbitration when they accepted their jobs.

The National Labor Relations Board, the independent agency that enforces collective bargaining law, argued that the forced arbitration clause interfered with Hobsons right to join together with other employees to improve their working conditions. The Obama White House agreed, filing a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Hobson.

But that was under former President Barack Obama. After President Donald Trump was inaugurated, his administration took the extremely rare step of reversing a previous administrations position on a sitting case before the court. Last June, Trumps acting solicitor general filed a new brief in support of the employers in the case.

---

Antifar posted...

she and her colleagues were required to do off-the-clock work they werent compensated for. They got together to sue the company for back pay.

Nope, you don't do that. You file a wage claim through the appropriate government agency.

Find a better example to show this ruling isn't meaningless.
---

there's already too many lawsuits
---

Frostshock posted...

Why would you ever bring a class action suit against your employer? You would always sue them individually.

This ruling is a whole lot of nothing.

If the subject of the lawsuit affects a large group of people, then a class action suit can be a thing.
---

Can someone explain this using small words so I can understand it? I have no idea what it means to "bar" workers or to "use individual arbitration".
---

Bar here means ban
---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Can someone explain this using small words so I can understand it? I have no idea what it means to "bar" workers or to "use individual arbitration".

Individual arbitration means that each person would have to sue the company on their own as opposed to a group of people (a class) suing the company in a single lawsuit.
---

So you're saying if I got discriminated against through a protected class at work and I plan to sue them then they can simply ban or fire me to get rid of my motion to sue?
---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

So you're saying if I got discriminated against through a protected class at work and I plan to sue them then they can simply ban or fire me to get rid of my motion to sue?

It's more like if an employer did something wrong that affected, say, 5000 people, then the employer can force all 5000 people to sue them individually as opposed to all 5000 people joining a class action lawsuit against the employer.
---

Frostshock posted...

Why would you ever bring a class action suit against your employer? You would always sue them individually.

This ruling is a whole lot of nothing.

the same kinds of reasons you would pursue a class action suit in any other setting

Frostshock posted...

Nope, you don't do that. You file a wage claim through the appropriate government agency.

okay and what do you do when that doesn't work? poor government oversight is a thing

it might not even be poor oversight if your state or locality has shitty employment rules, like not requiring your employer to furnish you with a pay stub. you might not be able to prove an individual claim.
---

"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written"

So change the law, simple enough.
---

BTW, I don't know what the actual law says, but isn't this what we want... the Supreme Court NOT being legislators?
---

In short words it means Corporations can piss on their employees all they like because by forcing them to sue on their own they can easily outspend them as they likely won't have the money to keep paying lawyers like a corporation can. Score another win for big money.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

BTW, I don't know what the actual law says, but isn't this what we want... the Supreme Court NOT being legislators?

The people who get angry at court decisions usually don't understand the correct branch of government to direct their anger towards.
---

Trump admin is four years of accelerationism that Marxists can surely appreciate tbh
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

essentially it means that if you want to file a class action suit against a company you'll have to resign.

Considering the sort of things that would make one file a class action lawsuit against an employer, I'm not sure why anyone would take issue with this.
---

Pretty disappointing ruling.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

essentially it means that if you want to file a class action suit against a company you'll have to resign.

Considering the sort of things that would make one file a class action lawsuit against an employer, I'm not sure why anyone would take issue with this.

Eh, your employer wronging a large group of people shouldn't require ending your tenure with the company to resolve. My mom worked for IBM for about 34 years. She joined a class action lawsuit around year 28 or so and ended up getting a pretty large payment out of it, and continued working for the company.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

essentially it means that if you want to file a class action suit against a company you'll have to resign.

Considering the sort of things that would make one file a class action lawsuit against an employer, I'm not sure why anyone would take issue with this.

It's an issue because it's not easy to organize a group resignation of God knows how many people.
---

Good.
---

Antifar posted...

Gorsuch penned the majority opinion

that's pretty interesting in and of itself. i'd have imagined he would have been full support for this sort of thing

but uh, y i k e s
---

The workers in the case said the National Labor Relations Act guarantees them the right to press claims as a group, either in arbitration or in court. The 1935 law protects "concerted activities" by workers, without explicitly mentioning lawsuits.

The majority said that language wasnt specific enough to overcome a separate 1925 law that says arbitration agreements must be enforced like any other contract.

This explains why those 5 justices ruled for the employer. Can anyone explain why they shouldn't have?

If you want to overturn this ruling, then pass a law that specifically says workers can get together to form class-action lawsuits.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Can anyone explain why they shouldn't have?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/neil-gorsuch-demolished-labor-rights-in-epic-systems-v-lewis.html

In 2012, the NLRB held that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, or the NLRA, nullifies arbitration clauses in cases like this. Its reasoning was simple. The Federal Arbitration Act declares arbitration agreements valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except upon such grounds as exist at law. And 10 years after Congress passed the FAA, it passed the NRLA, a signature piece of New Deal legislation that guarantees workers the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. (Emphasis mine.)

Quite sensibly, the NLRB found that lawsuits designed to collectively enforce workplace rights qualified as concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection. It thus found that the FAA must yield to the NLRA when employees file class actions to protect their interests under federal law.

Now, however, the Supreme Court has overturned that interpretation of the law. Gorsuch, the self-proclaimed textualist, rests his conclusion largely on the structure of the NRLA. He insists that class actions do not qualify as concerted activities for workers mutual aid because the NRLA does not expressly mention them. Never mind that the plain text of the statute is designed to safeguard collective rights that Congress didnt list in 1935 but that might arise down the road. Never mind that collective actionthough the courts, if necessaryis precisely the kind of activity that the NLRA was explicitly meant to fortify. To Gorsuch, concerted activities include only activities closely related to organization and collective bargaining, such as picketing. This assertion is based not in the text of the law but in the justices own wishful thinking.

In one of the most furious dissents of her career, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tore into the majority for substitut[ing] its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the peoples representatives. She accused Gorsuch of returning the Supreme Court to the Lochner era, when the justices routinely struck down workers rights under a dubious theory of economic liberty. The edict that employees with wage and hours claims may seek relief only one-by-one, she wrote, does not come from Congress. Instead, it is the result of take-it-or-leave-it labor contracts harking back to the type called yellow dog, and of the readiness of this Court to enforce those unbargained-for agreements. The FAA demands no such suppression of the right of workers to take concerted action for their mutual aid or protection.

---

That's a stupid biased article meant to get people mad at Trump for appointing Gorsuch.

The argument that the NLRB said that the NLRA includes class-action lawsuits is fair, but I'm not sure how fair it is considering five justices sided with the employer.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

but I'm not sure how fair it is considering five justices sided with the employer.

Four didn't.

Like, clearly there's room for multiple interpretations here
---

Antifar posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

but I'm not sure how fair it is considering five justices sided with the employer.

Like, clearly there's room for multiple interpretations here

Exactly.

The posts saying "yikes" or whatever are stupid.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The posts saying "yikes" or whatever are stupid.

It's not on CE posters to interpret federal law; this is a decision that will have huge adverse impacts on workers and should be opposed on a moral basis.
---

Antifar posted...

should be opposed on a moral basis

I don't believe you understand what the court's job is.
---

Frostshock posted...

Antifar posted...

should be opposed on a moral basis

I don't believe you understand what the court's job is.

I get what the court's job is. It's not mine.
---

Spooking posted...

This is great news as there are too many frivolous lawsuit as it is. We should all be grateful that Trump nominated Gorsuch for SC.

Forcing employees to file lawsuits individually increases the number of lawsuits, though
---

Remember when Union members in the Midwest voted for Trump because he said he would help them
hehe xd
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The workers in the case said the National Labor Relations Act guarantees them the right to press claims as a group, either in arbitration or in court. The 1935 law protects "concerted activities" by workers, without explicitly mentioning lawsuits.

The majority said that language wasnt specific enough to overcome a separate 1925 law that says arbitration agreements must be enforced like any other contract.

This explains why those 5 justices ruled for the employer. Can anyone explain why they shouldn't have?

The justification stinks as the spirit of the law is crystal clear. Its the sort of situation where sitting on your hands is no less political than enforcing the intended interpretation, particularly given the cost.

And, yes, this is now a job for legislators, a group of people bought and paid for by organizations with plenty of money. The only bargaining chip the little guy has is organizing into their own groups, which the NLRA was supposed to protect until the majority opinion plugged their ears and shut their eyes.
---

Antifar posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

The posts saying "yikes" or whatever are stupid.

It's not on CE posters to interpret federal law; this is a decision that will have huge adverse impacts on workers and should be opposed on a moral basis.

What's the cliffnotes of the dissenting opinions then? If five all signed on to the majority opinion, and that was that the law's language wasn't clear enough, then what do the dissenters say? Give the full story here.
---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Can someone explain this using small words so I can understand it? I have no idea what it means to "bar" workers or to "use individual arbitration".

The law said that you have to abide by arbitration clauses in an employment contract. Obama violated the law. The Supreme Court said that the law must be enforced as written.
---