BREAKING: Supreme Court says employers can enforce arbitration agreements that bar class actions suits

>BREAKING: Supreme Court says employers can enforce arbitration agreements that bar class actions suits.

How is this "making America great again?"

Attached: Screenshot 2018-05-21 10.56.08.png (735x305, 37K)

Other urls found in this thread:

fortune.com/2017/10/25/senate-vote-bank-class-action-lawsuit-arbitration/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Neither you nor I really understand the implications you lazy Jewish shill

fpbp

But now that I know about it, I would very much appreciate the opinion of a LawAnon.

JIDF please leave

Bob Loblaw's Law Blog when?

>you lazy Jewish shill
Ok user how am I a "Jewish shill" for not supporiting big corporations over the little guy?

Name the five that voted yes.

Speak for yourself, failure.

not a lawyer but it seems super simple

once you have written documentation of a settlement, even out of court, you cannot subsequently open a class-action suit, individual cases would still be possible

class-action suits are just ways for lawyers to predate on idiots, they are the ones that get the lion's share of the settlement money

>signs contract restricting self to arbitration
>try to jew out of contract
Why is this bad again? Read the shit you sign when you are hired.

>kike lawyers are the little guy

JIDF please leave

>Ok user how am I a "Jewish shill" for not supporiting big corporations over the little guy?
Anybody who supports one side by rule is a brainlet, yourself included. Each case should be approached individually and assessed on its own terms. Any judge who arrives at a case with a reputation for always siding with business or always siding with the employee should be gassed and thrown into a volcano.

>even allowing laws like this
I wonder if it's legal to demand in a prenup a woman signs away her right to vote?

>ou cannot subsequently open a class-action suit, individual cases would still be possible

Translation: Now big companies can simply dismiss individual lawsuits as opposes to us uniting all of our lawsuits together in a class action.

>Kike lawyers
>Don't work for big companies

Pick one JIDF

>Name the five that voted yes.

Take a guess? They were probably appointed by Republicans because they always suck off big corproations.

to defend against other kike lawyers
If we had tort reform they would be laid off as well

Don't know but my guess is Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Kennedy.

>Senate Vote Blocks Class-Action Lawsuits Against Banks

fortune.com/2017/10/25/senate-vote-bank-class-action-lawsuit-arbitration/

Lawyers are the slimiest kike motherfuckers, I'd rather deal with a used car salesman daily than a lawyer.once.

>to defend against other kike lawyers

So in order to "beat the kikes" we must "become the kikes?" You are a fucking retard.

Attached: 91vsv3vxfwvy.png (1000x800, 29K)

>arbitration agreements
don't want to be constrained? Don't enter into any such agreements.

You understand there are three branches of government? Trump wasn't involved at all.

It is not. Also, the companies will choose thr arbitrator, whom they pay. You are already forced into many mandatory arbitration agreements. Everytime you click to agreee to terms and conditions of use, cell phone contracts etc.

>Stop making kike lawyers work for their money goy!

JIDF please leave

Ok fine user, but when you are in a arbitration clause that says you are an indentured servant, don't blame me.

many employees aren't comfortable or rich enough to afford individual lawsuits. class action suits let them ban together.

>don't want to be constrained? Don't enter into any such agreements.

LE LIBERTARAIN BULLSHIT MAYMAY

IF YOU DON'T LIKE YOUTUBE POLICIES DON'T USE YOUTUBE RIGHT? DON'T MIND THE FACT 99% OF ALL VIDEOS COME FROM THERE

>many employees aren't comfortable or rich enough to afford individual lawsuits. class action suits let them ban together.
>many employees aren't comfortable or rich enough to afford individual lawsuits. class action suits let them ban together.
>many employees aren't comfortable or rich enough to afford individual lawsuits. class action suits let them ban together.
>many employees aren't comfortable or rich enough to afford individual lawsuits. class action suits let them ban together.
>many employees aren't comfortable or rich enough to afford individual lawsuits. class action suits let them ban together.

I really curious how my unabashed anti-Semitism leads you to conclude that I'm JIDF

>Being against people suing kike companies
>Anti semitism

Pick one

>I really curious how my unabashed anti-Semitism leads you to conclude that I'm JIDF

JIDF's strategy is use anti-Semitism in cases where it's not at all needed or warranted. You are like the Jews who burn down synagogues while claiming it was Nazis.

Based Arrested Development poster

>"band together"
You think class action means prohibiting togetherness?

>Supreme Court
>there are three branches of government
sage

His big business shill Supreme Court Justice was

It stops money hungry niggers, liberal roasties and LGBTBBQ+ retards from taking money away from the employers when they fire them when they call em on their bullshit

Ok fine user, but when you are in a arbitration clause that says you are an indentured servant, don't blame me.

Stop hiring niggers, liberal roasties, and LGBTBBQ+ retards.

>class-action suits are just ways for lawyers to predate on idiots, they are the ones that get the lion's share of the settlement money
This - my sister got blood clots in her lungs from a complication with her birth control meds, had to have one of her lungs surgically removed and is probably going to be on blood thinners the rest of her life. She took part in a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer and they settled. She got $20k out of it, not even enough to cover the long term medical expenses for more than a few years. I did the math based on the total payout and the number of participants the law firm probably made millions if not tens of millions off the suit.

So bring a class action lawsuit against them.

Cant because of diversity quotas

So you're saying is we should remove BOTH bullshit laws?

My point is that the particulars of this case probably boil down to something more nuanced than "lmao fuck poor people t. Drumpf" as OP is insinuating. Were I to attempt to get to the bottom of this with OP, I can only anticipate that the result would be a fruitless game of pilpul where we talk in circles without achieving any greater level of understanding on the subject at hand, exhausting and frustrating anyone trying to follow along, which is the classic Jewish tactic to obfuscate and misdirect in order to advance their objectives.

>class action lawsuit

You can't now dumbfuck.

>"lmao fuck poor people t. Drumpf"

Nah acutally that's pretty much what you are advocating for.

You are confused. This has nothing to do with Trump.

thatsthejoke.png

The solution to this is simple:

1) Form union
2) Populate union with members of class
3) Sue the company as a union

You get FAR more protections as a union suing a corporation than as a class action.

Additionally, if they attempt to bust up your union, you can sue them for that as well.

So different justice for every party involved?

If you end up an indentured servant, it is willingly because you did sign a contract. You read the comtracts you sign right?

Shit like this is why we had wars about it.

>This has nothing to do with Trump.

Trump didn't appoint Gorsuch who wrote the opinion.

Yes you can? This only bans class actions under a specific set of circumstances.
Fuck off, you hyperventilating liberal

>mistaking an user for some nigger-tier employee.

We're all neats or business owners here. Don't you have a foreskin to grow?

Attached: 1515220849870.png (499x328, 258K)

>You read the comtracts you sign right?

I don't know, did you read the 5,0000 page contracts to get on youtube, facebook, iphone updates, twitter?

>employers enforcing employment contracts for their employees means there are no more class-action lawsuits
Good joke.

>Be black, barely coherent gib
>Have boss yell at you for being late every day
>Get together with other gibs
>Somehow grasp the meaning of a class action suit
>Sue well meaning company that puts up with your bullshit gibs me dat attitude and employs your ass
>This x100
>Companies no longer hire black people.......

Wait....

>Land of the free!
>Let the free market reign!
>Oy Vey my mistreated workers are choosing to challenge their working conditions in court? Time for government intervention in the market

>>Sue well meaning company

The shills on here aren't very hard to find.

Thanks for the insight Chaim

>How is this "making America great again?"
Why don't you ask the cuck ex-presidents who appointed 8/9 of the current (clearly liberal) supreme court?

This

>Why don't you ask the cuck ex-presidents who appointed 8/9 of the current (clearly liberal) supreme court?

??????????????????

>want job
>someone offers job
>on condition you waive the right to file suit
>sure thing boss
>time passes
>waaaaaaaaah the government won't let me sue them

>law firm does something legal, yet you don't like the result
>bring a suit against them
Yes, lawyers will readily sue each other over basic law practice.
LMAO
M
A
O

Might as well. Whether it's legal or illegal is irrelevant, anyway.

any law that reduces occasions to sue is great
jews constantly try to raise the occasions where people can sue
it contributes to the ridiculous over-litigiousness of this country
and guess who is always there to aid in litigation, only for a couple thousand an hour?
think about it

THIS.
See also, Tobacco company lawsuits settled in 1998, where the money going to the states in the settlement have no direction as to how it is spent. Meaning, of course, that not one penny goes to actual victims of tobacco use.

That's not good.
Who wants to fuck up the Judiciary?

Good, class action suits exclusively benefit the lawers

>Good, class action suits exclusively benefit the lawers

And you know average Americans.

he said it isnt for the court to decide which policy to implement.

gorsuch is right, fuck your gibs. LAWS matter.

>Neither you nor I really understand the implications you lazy Jewish shill
Implications: A giant company can have as its standard contract such a clause barring class-action suits.

> Example: the Damore suit against Google.

Further Implication: these clauses could be 'industry standard', for example, so if there's a whole industry like, say, Tech who is acting like Damore's allegations of Google this would deprive ALL tech-workers from acting as a class.

> Example: Rampant H1B fraud is used to displace American tech workers; these people now have zero recourse as-a-class against the company. (This means individual suits; which, in turn, means the company can simply outspend and stonewall until people can't afford legal-fees.)

I don't know what this means

Attached: 1510364093572.jpg (183x275, 9K)

>I don't know what this means
SeeIgnore the shills.

Band, the phrase you want to use is "band together".

Isn't this really bad for kike lawyers? Where will they get a new revenue stream from now? Class actions were a huge money maker.