Justice Ruth Ginsburg penned her objections to the ‘egregiously wrong’ decision. The goal set forth for the Supreme Court was to reconcile two decisions that…
Justice Ruth Ginsburg penned her objections to the ‘egregiously wrong’ decision.
The goal set forth for the Supreme Court was to reconcile two decisions that seemed to contradict each other. New Deal labor laws gave workers explicit rights to pull together while the Federal Arbitration Act encouraged arbitration instead of lawsuits.
Three cases were heard and served as the basis for Monday’s ruling by the Supreme Court. All of those cases involve pay issues, but critics of the decision believe it will hurt employees who want to bring action against their employers for discrimination or sexual harassment. Management attorneys say it will protect employers from costly litigation that stretches across long periods of time. The ruling is consistent with the court’s historic tendency to favor arbitration over lawsuits. Justice Gorsuch wrote the decision which stated in part, “As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable. But as a matter of law, the answer is clear.”
Divided Supreme Court rules for businesses over workers in forced arbitration case. https://t.co/xlTomH1SAB pic.twitter.com/Hvp5jCcDXP
— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) May 21,2018
“When workers charge their employers with unlawful conduct – in this case, violations of laws governing wages earned and hours worked – there is strength in numbers.”
The Supreme Court is also considering a case related to the ability of public employee unions to collect dues from non-members in 24 states. That decision is expected to be against the unions with the same 5-4 split as Monday’s workers’ rights decision.
