In a case involving the rights of tens of millions of private-sector employees, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, delivered a major blow to workers, ruling for the first time that workers may not band together to challenge violations of federal labor laws.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act trumps the National Labor Relations Act and that employees who sign employment agreements to arbitrate claims must do so on an individual basis — and may not band together to enforce claims of wage and hour violations.
"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," Gorsuch writes. "While Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment, we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA — much less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the Arbitration Act. Because we can easily read Congress's statutes to work in harmony, that is where our duty lies."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four dissenters, called the majority opinion "egregiously wrong." She said the 1925 arbitration law came well before federal labor laws and should not cover these "arm-twisted," "take-it-or-leave it" provisions that employers are now insisting on.
The inevitable result, she warned, is that there will be huge underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of workers.
"[T]he edict that employees with wage and hours claims may seek relief only one-by-one does not come from Congress," Ginsburg writes. "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.'"
She urged Congress to correct the court's elevation of the arbitration act over workers' rights.
Notably, Ginsburg's dissent is five pages longer than the majority's opinion. And Gorsuch spends time in his opinion to respond point by point to the minority's arguments.
Joshua Cooper
The ruling came in three cases — potentially involving tens of thousands of nonunion employees — brought against Ernst & Young LLP, Epic Systems Corp. and Murphy Oil USA Inc.
Each required its individual employees, as a condition of employment, to waive their rights to join a class-action suit. In all three cases, employees tried to sue together, maintaining that the amounts they could obtain in individual lawsuits were dwarfed by the legal fees they would have to pay as individuals to bring their cases under the private arbitration procedures required by the company.
The employees contended that their right to collective action is guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. The employers countered that they are entitled to ban collective legal action under the Federal Arbitration Act, which was enacted in 1925 to reverse the judicial hostility to arbitration at the time.
A study by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute shows that 56 percent of nonunion private-sector employees are currently subject to mandatory individual arbitration procedures under the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act, which allows employers to bar collective legal actions by employees.
The court's decision means that tens of millions of private nonunion employees will be barred from suing collectively over the terms of their employment.
Henry Turner
>Each required its individual employees, as a condition of employment, to waive their rights to join a class-action suit. Quick rundown on why this is a good thing?
Easton Anderson
>Notably, Ginsburg's dissent is five pages longer than the majority's opinion. And Gorsuch spends time in his opinion to respond point by point to the minority's arguments. Why does this even matter? If anything, the longer you take to justify a position, the more likely you're just pulling stuff out your ass and employing serious mental gymnastics to make it appear you're in the right. Especially when the opponent in his statement already addresses your gripes.
Sebastian Sanders
Why is it that only conservative judges know how to rule in these things? They’re supposed to judge the written law, it’s the job of congress to write the law. There’s no spirit of the law
Jaxson Torres
nina. i'm pretty sure that's just traitor brennan in drag.
That statement is also meaningless without total page range. Did Gorsuch write 3 pages and Ginsberg 8? Or was it 100 and 105?
Elijah Davis
Pilpul, the jew's method of arguing bringing unrelated things into the argument. Ginsburg is a Jew through and through.
Gabriel Carter
>The law is old and outdated in my opinion, therefore I'm not going to interpret it as written
Being a judge seems hard. Tell Congress to actually do something you ancient bum.
Ethan Hill
>She said the 1925 arbitration law came well before federal labor laws and should not cover these "arm-twisted," "take-it-or-leave it" provisions that employers are now insisting on. Isn't it Congress's job to do something about that? You can't just say a law is no longer relevant because you don't like the result.
Sebastian Miller
congress needs to do their job and pass a law saying people who get ripped off by their company can calss action sue. its not the SCOTUS job to legeslate based on their morality. Ginsburg is afucking know-it-all feminist bitch. shes right people should be able to class action sue but its not her place to make it so.
Camden Thompson
Can I get a layman’s rundown on what EXACTLY this bill does without some Jow Forumstard splurging out some nonsense made up exaggerated bullshit?
Charles Lopez
It legally allows us to gas the jews. If you read between the lines. It is also now official de juri law trump’s real name is vlad drumpfistov
Henry Fisher
>without some Jow Forumstard splurging nonsense Sure, it means you're a colossal faggot.
Tyler James
>Notably, Ginsburg's dissent is five pages longer than the majority's opinion. Why is that notable? What kind of reporting is this?
Brandon James
This is about as pretty straightforward as it gets. Corporations need only one lawyer to fuck over a thousand, but the thousand needs a thousand lawyers.
Adrian Parker
Writing a dissent is easy. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act's mandate is a tax. The Constitution says tax bills must originate in the House, but ACA originated in the Senate. Takes no more than a one page write up to strike this one down. Complete no brainer.
Affirming the constitutionality of something, however, requires consideration of every reasonable way it could be unconstitutional.
Leo Garcia
But citing the page count difference doesn't tell the reader anything. It leads off its own paragraph, for goodness sake, and is described as being "notable." And then it's just left in thin air, off to the next paragraph. Just a useless factoid that adds nothing to any point being made in the article, and left up to the reader to make up some reason why he or she should derive some valence or other about the ruling.
Terrible reporting.
Julian Jackson
Its not, but the right wing loves it so expect the brainwashing to come out in favor of this soon enough.
John Wright
It is a good indicator of an ideological majority opinion rather than one grounded in good jurisprudence.
