Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)A court just gutted your right to sue your boss [View all]
Unnoticed except by employment lawyers, the United States Court of Appeals in New Orleans last month issued what might be the most important workers rights opinions in decades. The decision permits employers to require workers, as a condition of keeping their jobs, to agree to arbitrate all workplace disputes and to do so as individuals, standing alone against their employer. The ruling could spell the end of employment class actions that were instrumental to breaching the barriers of both race and sex discrimination after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and remain critical to enforcement of minimum wage and other labor standards laws.
The case involved D.R. Horton, a home-builder operating in 27 states with annual revenue over $6 billion. The company required all employees to sign an agreement providing that employment disputes would be resolved by binding arbitration and that the arbitrator may hear only Employees individual claims. When one employee tried to pursue a claim that D.R. Horton had misclassified an entire category of workers as exempt from the protection of federal overtime law, the company insisted that each worker had to file his or her own claim.
The employee sought relief from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which held that the agreement to waive the right to join with co-workers in pursuing workplace claims violated federal labor law, which not only gives employees a right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, but also to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of other mutual aid or protection. More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that labor law protects employees when they seek to improve their working conditions through resort to administrative and judicial forums. After all, if employees have a right to strike together for higher wages, surely they can sue together to obtain the same result. And that is what the board held: Just as employers cannot require employees to agree not to join a union by signing whats known as a yellow dog contract, neither can they require employees to agree not to file a class action.
The New Orleans Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, reversed the boards decision, concluding that employees longstanding labor-law right to act collectively was trumped by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which was enacted in 1925 to require courts to enforce private parties lawful agreements to resolve disputes out of court. But the FAA does not say anything about class actions and does not require enforcement of arbitration agreements that violate another law, such as the National Labor Relations Act. The courts holding was guided instead by recent Supreme Court decisions giving the FAA an expansive readingfor example, permitting AT&T Mobility to enforce an arbitration clause appearing in the fine print in its form contract with cell-phone users, precluding consumers from bringing a class action.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/a-court-just-gutted-your-right-to-sue-your-boss-101756.html
The case involved D.R. Horton, a home-builder operating in 27 states with annual revenue over $6 billion. The company required all employees to sign an agreement providing that employment disputes would be resolved by binding arbitration and that the arbitrator may hear only Employees individual claims. When one employee tried to pursue a claim that D.R. Horton had misclassified an entire category of workers as exempt from the protection of federal overtime law, the company insisted that each worker had to file his or her own claim.
The employee sought relief from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which held that the agreement to waive the right to join with co-workers in pursuing workplace claims violated federal labor law, which not only gives employees a right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, but also to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of other mutual aid or protection. More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that labor law protects employees when they seek to improve their working conditions through resort to administrative and judicial forums. After all, if employees have a right to strike together for higher wages, surely they can sue together to obtain the same result. And that is what the board held: Just as employers cannot require employees to agree not to join a union by signing whats known as a yellow dog contract, neither can they require employees to agree not to file a class action.
The New Orleans Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, reversed the boards decision, concluding that employees longstanding labor-law right to act collectively was trumped by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which was enacted in 1925 to require courts to enforce private parties lawful agreements to resolve disputes out of court. But the FAA does not say anything about class actions and does not require enforcement of arbitration agreements that violate another law, such as the National Labor Relations Act. The courts holding was guided instead by recent Supreme Court decisions giving the FAA an expansive readingfor example, permitting AT&T Mobility to enforce an arbitration clause appearing in the fine print in its form contract with cell-phone users, precluding consumers from bringing a class action.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/a-court-just-gutted-your-right-to-sue-your-boss-101756.html
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do you really expect the GD Woo War to go into cease-fire mode in order to talk about actual issues?
ChisolmTrailDem
Jan 2014
#2
Seriously getting tired of the word "woo" and all discussion of it. Obnoxious petulant children
Ed Suspicious
Jan 2014
#7
It's about 8 - 12 assholes that have been given carte blanche to stalk and spam the board. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Jan 2014
#21
Says the poster that dropped a ridiculous piece of flame bait thread in GD over it.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2014
#16
I haven't read the article, but it looks like the ruling was state law.
Baitball Blogger
Jan 2014
#9
I hope you're right about that. This ruling cannot stand. It would be terrible.
loudsue
Jan 2014
#46
And another court just gutted the hopes of thousands in Utah for the foreseeable future.
William769
Jan 2014
#11
The conclusion drawn in the article's headline AND in the article itself is....
George II
Jan 2014
#19
Anyone familiar with labor law would know that in MOST, if not all, states it is....
George II
Jan 2014
#39
450 former employees just got our money from a class action suit for wrongful termination
abelenkpe
Jan 2014
#30
There has been a long term trend of tort reform which limits your ability to sue, caps damages,
Dustlawyer
Jan 2014
#47