SCOTUS rules that employers can ban class action lawsuits

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
26,509
15,272
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#1
The SCOTUS this morning ruled in a 5-4 vote that employers can require as a condition of employment their workers waive their rights to participate in class action lawsuits and can include mandatory arbitration clauses to prevent class action lawsuits.

Any worker who wants to sue their employer must do so as an individual.

Currently mandatory arbitration clauses are imposed on roughly 50% of all US workers and 33% of US businesses have mandatory arbitration clauses that forbid class action lawsuits
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,743
16,178
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#2
Justice Neil Gorsuch said in delivering the opinion of the court that the employees challenging the agreements mistakenly claimed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) overrides the Federal Arbitration Act and renders the agreements unlawful.

“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,” he wrote.

“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.”

NLRA gives workers the right to organize union and bargain collectively, but Gorsuch said it does not confer a right for employees to join class or collective actions in court or in arbitration.

“It does not even mention class or collective action procedures,” he said. “It does not even hint at a wish to displace the Arbitration Act — let alone accomplish that much clearly and manifestly, as out precedents demand.”

The bolded portion above is what the scotus is supposed to uphold, I've often wondered why people think it is the scotus' job to do the job of congress.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,097
8,033
1,743
#3
Justice Neil Gorsuch said in delivering the opinion of the court that the employees challenging the agreements mistakenly claimed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) overrides the Federal Arbitration Act and renders the agreements unlawful.

“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,” he wrote.

“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.”

NLRA gives workers the right to organize union and bargain collectively, but Gorsuch said it does not confer a right for employees to join class or collective actions in court or in arbitration.

“It does not even mention class or collective action procedures,” he said. “It does not even hint at a wish to displace the Arbitration Act — let alone accomplish that much clearly and manifestly, as out precedents demand.”

The bolded portion above is what the scotus is supposed to uphold, I've often wondered why people think it is the scotus' job to do the job of congress.
And I'll say it again... THIS guy, Justice Gorsuch, is the definitive reason why I am tickled pink that Trump won the Presidency. He could quite possibly become the greatest SCOTUS appointee in my lifetime! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
Feb 11, 2007
3,847
1,817
1,743
Oklahoma City
#8
Absolutely agree. He seems to rule based on what the law says....not what he wishes the law said. And that is as it should be.
Agreed...too often passes a law that is poorly written and obscure in order to avoid taking the possible heat from voters. Then they leave it up to agencies or to the courts to untangle it and take the heat.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,281
2,053
743
Where else but Stillwater
#9
And I'll say it again... THIS guy, Justice Gorsuch, is the definitive reason why I am tickled pink that Trump won the Presidency. He could quite possibly become the greatest SCOTUS appointee in my lifetime! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
To most Christian conservatives, that won't happen until Gorsuch votes with the majority to restore state rights to ban homosexuality and abortion. Might as well throw in porn, too, and restore the right for public school teachers to lead in school prayer. All that may only be for starters.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,097
8,033
1,743
#10
To most Christian conservatives, that won't happen until Gorsuch votes with the majority to restore state rights to ban homosexuality and abortion. Might as well throw in porn, too, and restore the right for public school teachers to lead in school prayer. All that may only be for starters.
It's cute that you deleted your little pro-union and "but what about the poor people?" posting before anyone could LOL at it. At least you're learning. :derp:


Also... I never knew that banning homosexuality was an option. That one is new to me. :lol:
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,146
23,117
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#11
Hey any time one of the three branches of the federal government actually works as intended AND more importantly, within the confines of the limits of their power, it's a reason to celebrate.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,743
16,178
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#12
Absolutely agree. He seems to rule based on what the law says....not what he wishes the law said. And that is as it should be.
I just hope conservatives republicans remember this when he votes in a way counter to their opinion, like he did in the Dimaya case, he essentially used the same reasoning and yet there were conservative republican pundits complaining about it while lauding this one. Scalia was much the same way and again that is what they should do, whether or not you or I agree with the decision.
 
Last edited:

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,743
16,178
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#13
It's cute that you deleted your little pro-union and "but what about the poor people?" posting before anyone could LOL at it. At least you're learning. :derp:


Also... I never knew that banning homosexuality was an option. That one is new to me. :lol:
The irony is that Gorsuch is far more likely to protect, personal and property, rights than any other sitting member and yet he's the one people fixate on, both sides.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,919
30,412
1,743
Australia
#14
Hey any time one of the three branches of the federal government actually works as intended AND more importantly, within the confines of the limits of their power, it's a reason to celebrate.
While true, only sort of true. The reality is congress is so dysfunctional that the courts were put in a position to overinterpret law, which they often gladly did. If the court stops doing this, and congress remains dysfunctional, we are closer to what should happen but are still going to be stuck with some very bad law.
 

ramases2112

Territorial Marshal
Jun 28, 2008
9,721
5,197
1,743
26
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
#15
And I'll say it again... THIS guy, Justice Gorsuch, is the definitive reason why I am tickled pink that Trump won the Presidency. He could quite possibly become the greatest SCOTUS appointee in my lifetime! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Wait until he gets another pick. With the new rules that Democrats forced, Trump will be able to nominate a judge that would make Scalia look liberal.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,281
2,053
743
Where else but Stillwater
#16
Hey any time one of the three branches of the federal government actually works as intended AND more importantly, within the confines of the limits of their power, it's a reason to celebrate.
I gather your strongly support corporations removing class actions at every turn including your bank account, telephone company, you name it. After all, these corporations have to do something to keep in business, rather than risk customers uniting and wiping them out. If they all do it, you'll have no other choice.
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,281
2,053
743
Where else but Stillwater
#17
Wait until he gets another pick. With the new rules that Democrats forced, Trump will be able to nominate a judge that would make Scalia look liberal.
Huh? President Trump sure doesn't need Supreme Court rulings. He's been doing what he wants to do and more according to this: Covered rule makings in the Unified Agenda have a current deregulatory-to-regulatory ratio of 3.75 to 1, exceeding the Trump Administration’s goal of 2-to-1.

Read more: https://www.americanactionforum.org...gulatory-progress-and-forecast/#ixzz5GBLDqkeF
 

ramases2112

Territorial Marshal
Jun 28, 2008
9,721
5,197
1,743
26
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
#18
Wait until he gets another pick. With the new rules that Democrats forced, Trump will be able to nominate a judge that would make Scalia look liberal.
Huh? President Trump sure doesn't need Supreme Court rulings. He's been doing what he wants to do and more according to this: Covered rule makings in the Unified Agenda have a current deregulatory-to-regulatory ratio of 3.75 to 1, exceeding the Trump Administration’s goal of 2-to-1.

Read more: https://www.americanactionforum.org...gulatory-progress-and-forecast/#ixzz5GBLDqkeF
It's not about trump doing what he wants. Its having decades of constitutionalist rule on the supreme court. Our rights will be protected from activists judges for my lifetime and that is what I care about.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,281
2,053
743
Where else but Stillwater
#19
It's not about trump doing what he wants. Its having decades of constitutionalist rule on the supreme court. Our rights will be protected from activists judges for my lifetime and that is what I care about.
So what freedoms or rights have activist judges taken away from you? The freedoms to discriminate against anybody you want to, especially when a businessman?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,281
2,053
743
Where else but Stillwater
#20
It's cute that you deleted your little pro-union and "but what about the poor people?" posting before anyone could LOL at it. At least you're learning. :derp:


Also... I never knew that banning homosexuality was an option. That one is new to me. :lol:
Oh, come on kaboy42 , can we at least strongly agree with each other that Republicans feel the parties really hurting bad have been corporate concerns, rather than workers or poor people?