SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"Employees and consumers forced to arbitrate solo face severe impediments to the 'vindication of their rights,'" wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a dissent. (Photo: Phil Roeder/Flickr/cc)
Siding With Corporate Power Over Worker Rights, Supreme Court Supports Company That Sought to Block Class Action Lawsuit
In dissent, Justice Ginsburg says high court has "treacherously strayed."
Apr 24, 2019
This is a developing story and may be updated.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with corporate interests by ruling against a worker who had sought to band together with other employees to bring forth a class action lawsuit against a company.
It was a 5-4 decision (pdf), with conservatives in the majority.
The case, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, "hinged on whether courts can allow arbitration as a group even if an agreement does not explicitly provide for the collective arbitration of claims," Reuters reported.
The company argued that the ambiguous arbitration agreement in Frank Varela's employment contract meant he could not file a class action suit on behalf of employees whose personal information was exposed in a data breach.
The court "has held that courts may not infer consent to participate in class arbitration absent an affirmative 'contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so,'" wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. "Silence is not enough."
"That reasoning controls here," Roberts added. "Like silence, ambiguity does not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that parties to an arbitration agreement agreed to 'sacrifice the principal advantage of arbitration."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a dissent "to emphasize once again how treacherously the court has strayed from the principle that 'arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion.'"
Referring to Lamps Plus worker at the heart of the lawsuit, Ginsburg wrote that the "widely experienced neglect he identified cries out for collective treatment."
"Today's decision underscores the irony of invoking 'the first principle' that arbitration is strictly a matter of consent.. to justify imposing individual arbitration on employees who surely would not choose to proceed solo," said Ginsburg.
"Employees and consumers forced to arbitrate solo," Ginsburg added, "face severe impediments to the 'vindication of their rights.'"
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
This is a developing story and may be updated.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with corporate interests by ruling against a worker who had sought to band together with other employees to bring forth a class action lawsuit against a company.
It was a 5-4 decision (pdf), with conservatives in the majority.
The case, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, "hinged on whether courts can allow arbitration as a group even if an agreement does not explicitly provide for the collective arbitration of claims," Reuters reported.
The company argued that the ambiguous arbitration agreement in Frank Varela's employment contract meant he could not file a class action suit on behalf of employees whose personal information was exposed in a data breach.
The court "has held that courts may not infer consent to participate in class arbitration absent an affirmative 'contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so,'" wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. "Silence is not enough."
"That reasoning controls here," Roberts added. "Like silence, ambiguity does not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that parties to an arbitration agreement agreed to 'sacrifice the principal advantage of arbitration."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a dissent "to emphasize once again how treacherously the court has strayed from the principle that 'arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion.'"
Referring to Lamps Plus worker at the heart of the lawsuit, Ginsburg wrote that the "widely experienced neglect he identified cries out for collective treatment."
"Today's decision underscores the irony of invoking 'the first principle' that arbitration is strictly a matter of consent.. to justify imposing individual arbitration on employees who surely would not choose to proceed solo," said Ginsburg.
"Employees and consumers forced to arbitrate solo," Ginsburg added, "face severe impediments to the 'vindication of their rights.'"
This is a developing story and may be updated.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with corporate interests by ruling against a worker who had sought to band together with other employees to bring forth a class action lawsuit against a company.
It was a 5-4 decision (pdf), with conservatives in the majority.
The case, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, "hinged on whether courts can allow arbitration as a group even if an agreement does not explicitly provide for the collective arbitration of claims," Reuters reported.
The company argued that the ambiguous arbitration agreement in Frank Varela's employment contract meant he could not file a class action suit on behalf of employees whose personal information was exposed in a data breach.
The court "has held that courts may not infer consent to participate in class arbitration absent an affirmative 'contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so,'" wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. "Silence is not enough."
"That reasoning controls here," Roberts added. "Like silence, ambiguity does not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that parties to an arbitration agreement agreed to 'sacrifice the principal advantage of arbitration."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a dissent "to emphasize once again how treacherously the court has strayed from the principle that 'arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion.'"
Referring to Lamps Plus worker at the heart of the lawsuit, Ginsburg wrote that the "widely experienced neglect he identified cries out for collective treatment."
"Today's decision underscores the irony of invoking 'the first principle' that arbitration is strictly a matter of consent.. to justify imposing individual arbitration on employees who surely would not choose to proceed solo," said Ginsburg.
"Employees and consumers forced to arbitrate solo," Ginsburg added, "face severe impediments to the 'vindication of their rights.'"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.