MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Neil Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clash Over Federal Labor Law and the 'Specter' of Lochner v. New York

Understanding the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis.

C-SPANC-SPAN"Should employees and employers be allowed to agree that any disputes between them will resolve through one-on-one arbitration? Or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions, no matter what they agreed with their employers?"

That's how Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch summarized the dispute at the heart of today's 5-4 ruling in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis. Writing for a sharply divided Court, Gorsuch held that employees and employers have the legal right to make employment contracts that include one-on-one arbitration. Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

The legal puzzle in the case was how to best interpret the language of two far-reaching federal statutes. Under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA), arbitration agreements made between employers and employees "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" by the courts. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA), employees have the right to form and join labor unions and "to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." In other words, if a labor contract that includes an individual arbitration agreement is valid under the FAA, does it become invalid when the NLRA is factored in?

Justice Gorsuch thought not. "In the Federal Arbitration Act, Congress has instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms—including terms providing for individualized proceedings," he wrote. "Nor can we agree with the employees' suggestion that the [NLRB] offers a conflicting command. It is this Court's duty to interpret Congress's statutes as a harmonious whole rather than at war with one another."

Writing in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, offered a very different view. "Enacted later in time, the NLRA should qualify as 'an implied repeal' of the FAA, to the extent of any genuine conflict." According to Ginsburg, the best reading of applicable federal law in this case is that "employees must have the capacity to act collectively in order to match their employers' clout in setting terms and conditions of employment."

Upping the rhetorical ante, Ginsburg then accused Gorsuch of seeking to resurrect the Supreme Court's pre-New Deal "Lochner-era contractual 'liberty' decisions." Lochner refers to Lochner v. New York, the 1905 Supreme Court ruling which invalidated a state economic regulation on the grounds that it served no legitimate public health or safety purpose. In certain legal circles, to call something Lochner-ian is to dismiss it as tantamount to "judicial activism." Among those who have deployed the case in this insulting fashion was the late conservative legal thinker Robert Bork, who attacked Lochner as "the symbol, indeed the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power." Ginsburg favorably cited Bork in her dissent today.

In his majority opinion, Gorsuch responded directly to this critique. According to Ginsburg's dissent, he observed, "today's decision ushers us back to the Lochner era when this Court regularly overrode legislative judgments." Yet as Gorsuch retorted, "instead of overriding Congress's policy judgments, today's decision seeks to honor them. This much the dissent surely knows. Shortly after invoking the specter of Lochner, it turns around and criticizes the Court for trying too hard to abide the Arbitration Act's 'liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.'"

As for Ginsburg playing the Bork card against him, Gorsuch responded in kind, citing the liberal legal thinker Laurence Tribe, who wrote, "'Lochnerizing' has become so much an epithet that the very use of the label may obscure attempts at understanding."

The Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis is available here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Eidde||

    Never mind Lochner, let's go back to the Loch Ness era. Remember when everyone had a shadowy photograph of the monster?

  • Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoo Boing||

    Ya, that monster still owes me tree-fiddy.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    I am selling girl scout cookies.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Ah, the "arbitration clause". That wonderful thing that if you slip it into a contract, you can guarantee that you'll never have to go before an actual jury, and can guarantee that your "judge" will be favorable to you (after all, you're the one paying their check).

    People shouldn't be able to sign their rights away.

  • esteve7||

    what about an NDA?

  • EscherEnigma||

    NDAs don't stop courts from hearing cases, they just incur civil penalties if something is publicly discussed.

  • Juice||

    your "judge" will be favorable to you (after all, you're the one paying their check)

    Like every single criminal prosecution in this country?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Not sure what you're trying to rebuke here.

    That arbitration favors the company to a much greater degree then a civil trials do isn't really a bold statement.

    The need for criminal justice reform is an entirely separate issue.

  • Juice||

    Well, I don't know if rebuke is the right word (or if it would be in any case here). Just putting it into perspective.

    And it's not saying too much, but at the very least the the employee has a chance to disagree with an arbitration clause and choose not to sign it. No such choice with the state and its rigged judicial system.

  • Libertymike||

    Juice, your comment reflects the reality that judges who preside over any case involving the state have the biggest conflict of interest there is.

  • ||

    you're the one paying their check

    In formal arbitration, both parties pay the arbitrator, and both parties have to agree on the arbitrator.

    What arbitration clauses do do is provide the less financially well-endowed participant to not get shut down by the overwhelming expense of a full-blown lawsuit, which the employer (in cases of workplace disputes) is much better positioned to endure.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yes, that is the ideal.

    No, it's not the reality.

  • ||

    No, it's not the reality.

    Yes, it is. I've been through arbitration a couple of times. Does it solve all conceivable problems? No. Does it beat having to run a full-blown lawsuit and get outgunned by the deep pockets by default? Yes.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I've also experienced arbitration, albeit only for a small claims issue. Nevertheless, I found it more agreeable, humanizing, and fair, than going in front of the judge.

  • phoqueue||

    I don't think anyone is saying arbitration at the option of the employee should be prohibited.

  • RPGuy16||

    The employee is agreeing to the contract so it is by definition at the option of the employee. The question here is whether the employee has a right to change his mind after agreeing to the contract.

  • MarkLastname||

    And by 'their rights' you mean 'their employer's money.'

    What contracts do you believe people should be allowed to sign? Or are we all basically wards of the state?

  • phoqueue||

    I'm quite confident that I can draft contracts that screw consumers.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: EscherEnigma,

    People shouldn't be able to sign their rights away


    People do that all the time when they vote...

    Anyway, there's no such thing as a right to someone else's money, so your contention is specious.

  • Mark22||

    Ah, the "arbitration clause". That wonderful thing that if you slip it into a contract, you can guarantee that you'll never have to go before an actual jury,

    Yes, thereby lowering risk and transaction costs. An employer may be willing to hire a marginal employee with an arbitration clause, but not if they risk getting dragged into court.

    People shouldn't be able to sign their rights away.

    ... says the authoritarian.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That's not how arbitration works. If arbitrators get a reputation for not being impartial, then they will not be arbitrating for long. Anyway, arbitrators tend to be more impartial than judges, especially when one of the parties in the suit is the government.

  • chipper me timbers||

    "People shouldn't be able to sign their rights away."

    Contracts (and employment law) do this ALL the time.

    Can you carry a gun to work? No, your employer disallows it.

    Can you agree to grant an easement on your property? Yes. You signed away your rights to enforce trespassing on your property in that area.

    Can you sign a prenup that gives up your right to deman higher alimony in the event of a divorce? yes. Yes you can.

  • Hugh Akston||

    "It is this Court's duty to interpret Congress's statutes as a harmonious whole rather than at war with one another."

    It's the way they were written, after all.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's the Court's duty to warp irreconcilable conflicts in the law into mangled holdings that make the government, but not citizens, stronger, over time.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It helps to think of each law as a link in the chain of the shackles that bind every citizen to the state.

  • ||

    From the Notorious RBG:

    The inevitable result of today's decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.

    SO....FUCKING...WHAT...

    Has results based interpretive analysis ever been more blatantly represented than here? Probably. But I simply can't accept that legal theory should work backwards not forwards.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    It's getting harder and harder for her clerk's to edit out the random shouts of "PICKLES!" she keeps interjecting in her decisions.

  • AustinRoth||

    Short description of the holding:

    Majority - the law is clear. If it needs changing, that is up to Congress.

    Minority - the law is clear. If it needs changing, that is up to Congress.

    The difference is in what each sides think is clear. The majority says "how the laws were interpreted for over 70 years." The minority says "how Obama interpreted the laws."

  • Pro Libertate||

    You have to wonder at just what point the left will openly repudiate the Constitution?

  • Shirley Knott||

    85 years ago?

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, they still tried to amend the Constitution back then.

  • perlchpr||

    They've been pretty openly hostile to the 2A for a long while now.

  • BeBraveUSA||

    Gorsuch responded in kind, citing the liberal legal thinker Laurence Tribe, who wrote, "'Lochnerizing' has become so much an epithet that the very use of the label may obscure attempts at understanding."

    So I guess the Lochner is the race card of the SCOTUS. No surprise that Ginsberg would resort to name calling.

  • josh||

    If you read the dissent, they read more like a woeful plea to not do this to FDR than legal opinion.

  • Juice||

  • Rossami||

    Ginsburg is an idiot. "'Implied repeals" have no place in court decisions. Legislatures are entirely capable of making their repeals explicit. They do it all the time. If your argument hinges on "an implied repeal", then either you think Congress is incompetent or you're wrong.

    By the way, we don't need to rule out the 'Congress is incompetent' hypothesis to say that you're still wrong. If Congress really is incompetent, the answer is to send it back to them until they get it right. Courts don't get to make law just because they don't think Congress did a good enough job.

  • Libertymike||

    If Congress enacts legislation taking A's property in order to give it to B, the courts have a duty to strike such legislation down and inter it.

    Courts have no business rubber stamping any economic legislation which advances any communistic, Fabian, Marxist, progressive, or socialist concept. It is a court's duty to protect private property.

  • Agammamon||

    If your argument hinges on "an implied repeal", then either you think Congress is incompetent or you're wrong.

    Half the court's job is interpreting what the legislature *meant* - Do you think all those lawyers in Congress *read* the existing law? Understand precedent? Write new laws so they mesh with what has come before?

    So yeah, Congress is incompetent and the courts simply work with what they have.

  • BYODB||


    "Enacted later in time, the NLRA should qualify as 'an implied repeal' of the FAA, to the extent of any genuine conflict."


    Uhh...so she's saying that the judicial branch can just interpret their way to repeal of laws...interesting. No clue how valid that is, I'm no lawyer, but it seems like bullshit to me.


    In his majority opinion, Gorsuch responded directly to this critique. According to Ginsburg's dissent, he observed, "today's decision ushers us back to the Lochner era when this Court regularly overrode legislative judgments." Yet as Gorsuch retorted, "instead of overriding Congress's policy judgments, today's decision seeks to honor them. This much the dissent surely knows. Shortly after invoking the specter of Lochner, it turns around and criticizes the Court for trying too hard to abide the Arbitration Act's 'liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.'"


    And yeah, this is exactly what I thought. It occurred to me that The Notorious RBG was projecting here since they were the one's attempting to make a claim of the SC's ability to 'imply repeals'. Golly.

  • Agammamon||

    While normally I'm all for freedom of contract, I don't think it should be possible to lock yourself out of access to the *public, government* dispute resolution service (that we're all paying for anyway) any more than you should be able to lock yourself out of the criminal justice system or sell yourself into perpetual slavery.

    I'd have no problem with contracting to use an arbitration service *first* and then, and only if you couldn't reach a settlement that way, move into the civil court system.

  • chipper me timbers||

    "any more than you should be able to lock yourself out of the criminal justice system or sell yourself into perpetual slavery"

    This would just be a fixed price arrangement for your yearly salary across multiple years. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do this?

  • Mark22||

    I don't think it should be possible to lock yourself out of access to the *public, government* dispute resolution service (that we're all paying for anyway)

    Why not? Government dispute resolution is time consuming and expensive, hence risky. Both sides to a contract may decide that they want to eliminate that risk.

    sell yourself into perpetual slavery.

    You cannot "sell yourself into slavery" in a free market system because the legal status of "slave" necessarily goes beyond contract law. But you are already free to sign work contracts that will ruin your life if you don't perform.

  • JFree||

    Both sides to a contract may decide that they want to eliminate that risk.

    Arbitration clauses are almost never an item of mutual agreement in an arm's length transaction. They are imposed by the stronger party on the weaker party. In practice their existence is pretty good evidence that there is no true free competitive market at work

  • sparkstable||

    Or.... that employees favor the terms and accept the contract as a better situation than not doing so, which they are free to do. If unions can strike, then employees can pass on a job offer. They are the same thing, functionally, from the employee's perspective. They are a forgoing of income through a withholding of labor. If an employee can afford or choose to do this later in the employment experience (strike), they can also do this at the front end. If enough employees do this, the practice will fade away as businesses will see it as an encumbrance to finding labor more than they see it as a savings to the cost of business.

    And by "do this" referring to the strike I'm not necessarily saying they can justly or legally strike... just that they have the capacity to do so, which is the foundational argument being made above, that employees do NOT have the capacity to forgo a job offer because "reasons" thereby making them the weaker of the two parties in the labor negotiation.

  • JFree||

    that employees favor the terms and accept the contract as a better situation than not doing so, which they are free to do...If enough employees do this, the practice will fade away as businesses will see it as an encumbrance to finding labor more than they see it as a savings to the cost of business.

    Of course. And that is exactly why Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with rape and egregious assault for so long. He used a combination of individual arbitration clauses - and NDA's following settlement - to ensure that no one else even had the information on his behavior.

    Have no effin doubt. This is not about unions or strikes or collective bargaining. This is about ensuring that laws themselves don't apply in cases where the powerful party doesn't want to be subject to them. All three of these cases (consolidated into Epic) were about companies failing to pay overtime. With the arbitration clause used to prevent an actual remedy.

  • Mark22||

    Of course. And that is exactly why Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with rape and egregious assault for so long. He used a combination of individual arbitration clauses - and NDA's following settlement - to ensure that no one else even had the information on his behavior.

    NDAs and arbitration clauses don't protect you against criminal charges of rape and assault. Weinstein got away with what he did for so long because women found it useful for their careers to sleep with him and then remain silent about it until they had made it in the industry.

  • JFree||

    Of course - and when someone points a fucking gun at your temple and says 'your wallet or your life', it is usually far more beneficial to your career to just hand over the wallet to them.

    As long as there is choice, there can be no coercion. Ya sure ya betcha.

  • JFree||

    If an employee can afford or choose to do this later in the employment experience (strike), they can also do this at the front end.

    Oh - and in at least two of these cases - the arbitration clause was not done 'at the front end'. It was done via an email to employees saying that individual arbitration would apply henceforth and their continued employment was contingent on accepting that. And as before - the legal function of that arbitration clause was to prevent employees from filing for overtime pay (or withheld pay) under FLSA - not to create an 'arbitration process' for resolving disputes every single week about the hours an employee worked that week and to resolve shortages in their paycheck.

  • Karen24||

    Thank you for noting this. The employer in this case committed wage theft and the Supreme Court approved it.

  • Mark22||

    And as before - the legal function of that arbitration clause was to prevent employees from filing for overtime pay (or withheld pay) under FLSA - not to create an 'arbitration process' for resolving disputes every single week about the hours an employee worked that week and to resolve shortages in their paycheck.

    And the problem with that is... what? If you don't like your wages, you can always leave and find another employer.

  • Mark22||

    Arbitration clauses are almost never an item of mutual agreement in an arm's length transaction. They are imposed by the stronger party on the weaker party.

    Your employer offers you something desirable and valuable and you need to make compromises to get it, just like they need to make compromises when hiring you. There is no stronger/weaker party: both employer and employee can just walk away.

    In practice their existence is pretty good evidence that there is no true free competitive market at work

    I have had both kinds of employment contracts, so there obviously is a choice in the market. It's just that most people don't care. I certainly have never cared about whether there were binding arbitration clauses in my contracts since I don't plan on suing my employer no matter what.

  • JFree||

    These aren't about actual employment contracts. They are employees-at-will where the arb clause is used as a legal backstop to ensure that attempting to 'go to court' to resolve disputes becomes a valid reason to fire them and blackball their future employment.

  • FlameCCT||

    That is close to how the system works. The problem in this case is that non-union positions that were trying to be heard as if they were unionized, i.e. class action law suits instead of individual arbitration. IOW a made up issue that is found no where in the laws themselves.

  • chipper me timbers||

    "today's decision ushers us back to the Lochner era when this Court regularly overrode legislative judgments."

    I love how this is supposed to be considered a bad thing.

    It is the courts' JOB to override legislation. That's their ONLY job! WTF

  • soldiermedic76||

    No their job is to decide if said law is Constitutional. If it is then, even if it is a bad law, their job is to leave it alone. We have three branches that are equal but have separate duties . Not one branch that rules them all.

  • Mark22||

    The inevitable result of today's decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.

    The inevitable result of a different decision would have been to price many vulnerable workers out of the market entirely and condemn them to a lifetime of government dependency. Of course, RBG has no problem with screwing up the lives of people that way.

  • Will Nonya||

    I heard about this today under the headline "Supreme court deals serious blow to workers".

  • Finrod||

    I don't often hear cocaine called 'serious'.

  • Longtobefree||

    "In other words, if a labor contract that includes an individual arbitration agreement is valid under the FAA, does it become invalid when the NLRA is factored in?"

    This reminds me of the trick questions in English class. The answer is clearly NO. If the union actually was stupid enough to negotiate a contract including a mandatory arbitration clause, then it is damn sure enforceable. It sounds like the senile faction of the supremes is trying to pretend that individual labor contracts and group (union) contracts have to be the same. "Say it ain't so, Joe"

  • sparkstable||

    If the union agrees to something provided under FAA, and they do so after the passage of NLRA, they, in effect, have implied a deferral of NLRA in favor of FAA.

    Isn't that essentially what RBG is saying about Congress? Or are the unions dumber than congress in her world?

    She can't have her cake and eat it, too.

  • JFree||

    This decision wasn't about unions in at least two of the cases (idk about the Murphy Oil case). All three cases were about whether employees could sue under the Fair Labor Standards Act - which does specifically and explicitly allow for 'class action' lawsuits for employees who are put into the same 'collective' bucket defined by their employer (ie their job title).

  • Bubba Jones||

    This is the meat of the question. Can companies preemptively defang a class action suit by forcing each employee into single arbitration?

    Is there such a thing as class action arbitration?

    I think in the case of unions, I would presume the arbitration would be "fair".

    With the company vs a single employee, it seems unlikely that the employee would have the resources to adequately prepare.

    In the absence of a union, it seems unlikely the employees could perform effectively in a group arbitration.

    In a class action suit, the employees would have better access to representation.

    Seems like congress should address that.

  • JFree||

    It's not even so much about mere representation. It is about systematic violation of the law. For the two main cases (Epic and E&Y), the practice at core is pervasive and has been for decades. It has always been near impossible to address. Arb clauses make that truly impossible.

    Define a white-collar entry-level office job as requiring a college degree even though it clearly doesn't. It is merely the job new college recruits are stuffed into. Call it 'professional'. Make it exempt and therefore salaried. So the company doesn't even track OT/hours. The company can then also 'sell' the expectations that professionals work 45-50 hours/week here.

    Going to court to claim OT under FLSA would require that the employee successfully argue that the job ITSELF is 'non-exempt' not exempt - and should be hourly not salaried. Which means other people with the same title need to testify as to what the job title itself involves re actual work. That's why FLSA explicitly allows them to join in the same lawsuit.

  • JFree||

    As an aside - I'll bet that 80% of the commenters here were stuffed into a job like this with their first white-collar office job out of college. Any employer that has mostly white-collar employees also has created a 'career path' for the most common professional jobs - accountant, engineer, programmer, analyst, etc. That career path has a first rung or two on the ladder which is mostly, in practice, scut work.

    That first step is casually defined as professional even though it does NOT meet the legal definitions under FLSA performing work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment which requires advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning that can be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction..

    But as long as the salary is more than $23,600 (a number that was set a couple decades ago I think) - the burden is on the employee. Every person who has experience of 'bogus credentialing' by employers most likely has this sort of 'first job' as their reference point.

  • RPGuy16||

    Since I am not a slave I was never "stuffed into" any job. Every job I have had was taken and performed by my own choice.

  • RPGuy16||

    Since I am not a slave I was never "stuffed into" any job. Every job I have had was taken and performed by my own choice.

  • Mark22||

    It's not even so much about mere representation. It is about systematic violation of the law. Arb clauses make that truly impossible.

    So, from a libertarian point of view, you're saying that a bad law is hard to enforce. Why should I care?

  • JFree||

    You seem to approve of the notion that access to a court itself - acquiring legal standing - is some anti-liberty thang. Basically just another maggot who wants to restore Dred Scott.

  • Mark22||

    All three cases were about whether employees could sue under the Fair Labor Standards Act

    So you are arguing that the court didn't uphold a progressive remedy to enforce progressive legislation based on progressive ideas (power disparity). We can agree on that.

    The part I'm missing here is why libertarians should care about those political views. Do you think that lecturing libertarians repeatedly about your progressive preferences is going to change anybody's mind?

  • JFree||

    You can throw political labels around all you want. I just don't give a shit about your self-justifying modern Republican Party crap. Your political party is a rotting corpse and all its defenders/voters are just blowfly maggots. They are attempting to steal the label libertarian just like the left successfully stole the label 'liberal' way back when.

  • FlameCCT||

    Justice RBG ignores two issues here.
    1. Union employment contracts under the NLRA have union approved arbitration clauses in many cases.
    2. The case before SCOTUS concerned non-union employment positions therefore the union was not part of the contract hence the Federal Arbitration Act is primary as these are individual employment contracts.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    How were these contracts? There was no negotiation, there was an employer saying "agree to arbitrate or quit, take it or leave it". If there's no negotiation, how can there be real agreement or contract?

    And if arbitration's so beneficial for employees, why is it only ever propsed by employers?

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    How were these contracts? There was no negotiation, there was an employer saying "agree to arbitrate or quit, take it or leave it". If there's no negotiation, how can there be real agreement or contract?

    And if arbitration's so beneficial for employees, why is it only ever propsed by employers?

  • prolefeed||

    Are you saying that there's no negotiation when one party makes an offer, and the other party can refuse to accept that offer by refusing to do business with them if they find that offer objectionable?

    I recently quit a job when my employer did something I found offensive. How is that not a negotiation?

  • drm31415||

    This is a ridiculous argument, by this logic no term in an employment contract is valid if there was "no negotiation", contracts don't require negotiation, just a meeting of the minds, clean hands, terms not barred by law, mutual obligation/consideration, and mutual agreement w/o duress. Since these were contracts signed at the beginning of employment your "or quit" claim is pretty ridiculous and requiring an employment contract for work isn't duress in these circumstances.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Ding ding ding, you've got it: no negotion, no meeting of the minds since only one mind was involved.

  • drm31415||

    "Meeting of the minds" simply means both sides know the terms of the agreement and agree to them, that has NOTHING to do with negotiation. An agreement/contract based on an offer which is made and stated as non-negotiable is still valid as long as both parties know the terms and agree to them.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    All of this handwringing seems predicated on the belief that there are just a tiny number of employers and workers have no choices. That probably is the ideal of pro-government control freaks, but it isn't the reality now. It wasn't even the reality during the latter Bush and entire Obama terms.

    The federal government just needs to get out of anything that keeps the market from operating friction free. Local governments are a good place to experiment, because at that level employees have choices.

  • drm31415||

    FAA is explicit that - arbitration agreements made between employers and employees "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" by the courts, while NLRA is vague and apparently makes no reference to arbitration agreements, to ignore an explicit law, in favor of broad interpretation of a vague, non-specific law, seem to be a pretty clear case of the dissenters cherry picking the laws they like and ignoring the laws they don't in order to justify the ruling the want to make.

  • TxJack 112||

    In short, the minority is arguing the employee should have the right to change the terms of their contract when they choose which is insane. When you accept a job, you accept the what you and your employer agree are acceptable. For one side to suddenly decide they do not like the contract and then change it is not a fair outcome. What Ginsburg said is not surprising because like all leftists, she views businesses (employers) as inherently evil and out to exploit employees at every turn.

  • HINSI STATUS||

  • HINSI STATUS||

    collection of hindi status, love shayari, Funny Jokes in Hindi, hindi whatsapp status , cute love status, High attitude status in hindi and many more

    Whatsapp Status

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online