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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.