https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-22/this-is-what-a-more-conservative-supreme-court-looks-like
I agree that my last source made for some dry reading, but it was all I could come up with at the moment. I was planning to see if I could find a more accessible article on Wiki but, as luck would have it, our local newspaper printed a guest editorial today that seems to sum it up pretty well. I was able to find it online. Aren't you proud of me?
Actually, my overly simplified interpretation of the court's ruling wasn't that far off the mark, considering that I didn't know what I was talking about which, of course, has never stopped me before. One error I made was the assumption that the labor agreement mentioned in the ruling was a union contract. Turns out they were talking about an individual employment contract which, apparently, some employers are requiring as a condition of employment these days. This contract says that legal disputes are to be settled by individual arbitration instead of collective legal action. Courts will generally uphold contracts like this unless they violate the law. Therefore, the case turned on the question of the legality of the contract. There were two different laws considered, one of which seems to say such contracts are legal, and another that seems to say they are illegal. The majority opinion gave more weight to the first law, while the minority opinion gave more weight to the second law. Neither law specifically mentions class action lawsuits, because they weren't in general use at the time the laws were passed.
These are the kinds of cases that make lawyers rich. Congress could fix this but, since most congressmen are lawyers, don't count on it.
This just in: https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAxLGxa?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
No comments:
Post a Comment