Ocnus.Net
News Before It's News
About us | Ocnus? |

Front Page 
 
 Africa
 
 Analyses
 
 Business
 
 Dark Side
 
 Defence & Arms
 
 Dysfunctions
 
 Editorial
 
 International
 
 Labour
 
 Light Side
 
 Research
Search

Labour Last Updated: Oct 3, 2017 - 4:09:16 PM


Supreme Court Opens its New Term with a Direct Attack on Workers Rights
By Ian Millhiser, Think Progress, September 25, 2017
Oct 2, 2017 - 6:35:13 AM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

The Supreme Court returns next Monday from its summer vacation for the first full term where Neil Gorsuch will occupy a seat at the far end of the Court’s bench. And the Court will open this term with a trio of cases that are very likely to immunize many employers from consequences for their illegal actions.

The three cases — National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA [1], Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris [2], and Epic Systems v. Lewis [3] — all involve employment contracts cutting off employee’s rights to sue their employer for legal violations.

In at least one case, employees were required to sign the contract as a condition of beginning work. In another, employees were forced to give up their rights as a condition of keeping their job. These contracts contained two restrictions on the employees: 1) a “forced arbitration” provision, which requires any legal disputes between the employer and the employee to be resolved in a privatized arbitration system; and 2) a provision prohibiting employees from bringing class actions or other collective suits against their employers.

Requiring private arbitration favors employers over employees [4]. As an Economic Policy Institute study determined, employees are less likely to prevail before an arbitrator than before a court, and they typically receive less money from an arbitrator when they do prevail.





Banning class action suits, meanwhile, effectively permits employers to violate the law with impunity [5], so long as they do not do too much harm to any individual employee.

If an employer cheats one employee out of $300,000 worth of wages, for example, that employee is likely to be able to find a lawyer who will take his case on a contingency basis — meaning that the lawyer gets a percentage of what the employee collects from the employer if they win. If the same employer cheats 10,000 employees out of $30 each, however, no lawyer is going to represent any one of these workers on a contingency basis. Plus, few employees are likely to bother with a $30 suit. It’s too much hassle, and too expensive to hire a lawyer who won’t work on contingency. The solution to this problem is a class action suit, which allows the 10,000 employees to join together in a single case litigated by a single legal team.

Banning such class actions effectively leaves these employees without remedy. As one federal judge explained, “the realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30 [6].”

The employer’s claim that they can combine a forced arbitration clause with a class action ban arises out of two previous Supreme Court cases that took an extraordinarily creative view of a nearly 100-year-old law.

In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to allow, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once explained, “merchants with relatively equal bargaining power [5]” to agree to resolve their disputes through arbitration. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the Court started to read this law expansively to permit forced arbitration between businesses and relatively powerless consumers and employees.

Then, the Court got even more aggressive. By its own terms, the Federal Arbitration Act exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce [7].” Nevertheless, in its 5-4 decision in Circuit City v. Adams [7], the Supreme Court held that the Act applies to most workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. Thus, forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts were given special protected status, even though the federal law governing these clauses says otherwise.

Similarly, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a 5-4 Court in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion [8] that the Federal Arbitration Act has penumbras, formed by emanations from its guarantees that give it life and substance [9]. The right of businesses to insert class action bans, Scalia claimed, is one of these penumbras contained in the 1925 law. And so businesses gained the power to add no class action clauses to their forced arbitration agreements, even if a ban on class actions violates state law — and despite the fact that the Federal Arbitration Act says nothing about class actions.

Nevertheless, the employees in Murphy Oil and its companion cases hope that another provision of law will protect them from signing away their right to join a class action.

A provision of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides that “employees shall have 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.” Several lower courts have held that an employee’s right to engage in “concerted activities” protects their right to join class actions, and they cite multiple previous Supreme Court decisions which lend credibility to this claim.

In a world governed by the text of the law, employees would have a strong case that they cannot be forced to give up their right to bring class action litigation. But we live in a world governed by Circuit City and Concepcion — both of which demonstrate the Supreme Court’s willingness to take liberties with the law in forced arbitration cases.

Links:
[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-murphy-oil-usa-inc/
[2] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ernst-young-llp-v-morris/
[3] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/epic-systems-corp-v-lewis/
[4] https://thinkprogress.org/trump-admin-nursing-home-95a1aa1cb79d/
[5] https://thinkprogress.org/justice-ginsburgs-ominous-warning-about-creeping-corporate-power-c201ba27e420/
[6] http://www.litigationdaily.com/id=1202739151633/Say-Goodbye-to-Mandatory-ArbitrationAnd-Hello-to-Class-Actions?slreturn=20151114161835
[7] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13997435562158688431&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
[8] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17088816341526709934&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
[9] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html


Source:Ocnus.net 2017

Top of Page

Labour
Latest Headlines
As Apples orders decline, supplier Jabils workers go on strike in Wuxi
Grievances, Strategies, and Demands of the Contemporary Chinese Labour Movement
What the Revival of Socialism in America Means for the Labor Movement
French Unions Reunite in Call for Civil Servants' Strike Tuesday
A Trailblazing New Law in Illinois Will Dramatically Expand Temp Workers Rights
Supreme Court Opens its New Term with a Direct Attack on Workers Rights
Labor shortage deepens after hurricanes
Senate Democrats: Canadian Unions Shouldnt Have to Compete With Cheap American Labor
Trump Stacks Labor Department with Friends of Big Business
French unions try to strangle workers opposition to Macron