logo
book Subscribe to our Magazine
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
    • Grassroots Fundraising Journal
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Podcasts
    • Tiny Spark
    • Women of Color in Power
  • Webinars
    • Free Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership

US Supreme Court Finds Yet Another Way to Rule against Worker Rights

Steve Dubb
April 25, 2019
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

April 24, 2019; New York Times

Whose consent counts, and whose can be ignored? That question has been resolved—and not in a good way—in a US Supreme Court case, Lamps Plus v. Varela, decided yesterday. In a five-to-four split, the Court weighed in on yet one more way to curtail the rights of workers to organize.

The case involves a data breach of the tax filings of 1,300 Lamps Plus employees, with the hacker using the data obtained to file fraudulent returns. As Adam Liptak in the New York Times explains, Frank Varela, one of those employees, filed a class action suit on behalf of himself and the 1,300 other affected coworkers, accusing Lamps Plus of negligence in failing to protect employee data.

Varela’s employment contract mandated arbitration, so a California judge remanded the case accordingly. The judge, however, reviewed the contract and said the 1,300 workers’ cases could be treated by the arbitration body as a single class.

Lamps Plus appealed, demanding that Varela’s case be treated individually, even though 1,300 workers were affected. Varela and his coworkers, however, prevailed in a split decision among a three-person panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. According to the Ninth Circuit majority, because the arbitration clause did not ban a collective case, it was permitted. In particular, the Ninth Circuit applied a doctrine known as contra proferentem; this doctrine says that if ambiguity exists, then the court should rule against the contract drafter—in this case, the employer, Lamps Plus.

This week at the US Supreme Court, however, a 5-4 court majority led by Chief Justice Roberts reversed that decision and said that only individual arbitrations were allowed. And yes, the 5-4 split was along the lines you might imagine. Favoring Lamps Plus were Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Siding with Varela were justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

The logic of the court’s decision speaks to the Kafkaesque world that arbitration clauses often involve. According to the court majority, the wish of Varela and his coworkers to have their claims heard collectively must be denied because “the first principle that underscores all of our arbitration decisions” is that they must be about “strictly a matter of consent.” The employment contract at Lamps Plus was silent on whether or not class arbitration was permitted. The court majority held, therefore, that the company had not consented to class arbitration—only to the individual arbitration that Lamps Plus said in court that it wanted.

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

But the idea that arbitration is strictly a matter of consent is laughable. After all, Varela and his coworkers surely would have preferred to avoid arbitration altogether. How do we know this? Well, the fact that they went directly to court in spite of the arbitration clause in their contracts is a clue. The employees “consented” to arbitration only in the sense that they decided it was better to be employed than have no jobs at all.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reminds us in her dissent, arbitration was initially intended as a means for disputes between businesses, which were assumed to have roughly equal power. But Ginsburg adds:

In relatively recent years, [the US Supreme Court] has routinely deployed the law to deny to employees and consumers “effective relief against powerful economic entities… Arbitration clauses, the Court has decreed, may preclude judicial remedies even when submission to arbitration is made a take-it-or-leave-it condition of employment or is imposed on a consumer given no genuine choice in the matter… Propelled by the Court’s decisions, mandatory arbitration clauses in employment and consumer contracts have proliferated.

And in case after case, workers therefore are disadvantaged in making their claims. NPQ has written before about the many nefarious consequences of forced arbitration, including regarding how arbitration clauses can be a powerful means to prevent successful prosecution of sexual harassment cases.

As for the workers at Lamps Plus, the result, as Ginsburg explains, is as follows:

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. Respondent Frank Varela sought redress for negligence by his employer leading to a data breach affecting 1,300 employees.…The widely experienced neglect he identified cries out for collective treatment.…Shut from the Court’s sight is the “Hobson’s choice” employees face: “accept arbitration on their employer’s terms or give up their jobs.”

—Steve Dubb

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Steve Dubb

Steve Dubb is a senior editor at NPQ, where he directs NPQ’s economic justice program, including NPQ’s Economy Remix column. Steve has worked with cooperatives and nonprofits for over two decades, including twelve years at The Democracy Collaborative and three years as executive director of NASCO (North American Students of Cooperation). In his work, Steve has authored, co-authored and edited numerous reports; participated in and facilitated learning cohorts; designed community building strategies; and helped build the field of community wealth building. Steve is the lead author of Building Wealth: The Asset-Based Approach to Solving Social and Economic Problems (Aspen 2005) and coauthor (with Rita Hodges) of The Road Half Traveled: University Engagement at a Crossroads, published by MSU Press in 2012. In 2016, Steve curated and authored Conversations on Community Wealth Building, a collection of interviews of community builders that Steve had conducted over the previous decade.

More about: Nonprofit NewsPolicySCOTUS Decisions & The Aftermathsexual harassmentworkers rights

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

NPQ_Spring_2022

You might also like
Miners vs. Wall Street: Strikes in the Era of Asset Management Capitalism
Dr. Ericka Wills
Edgar Cahn’s Second Act: Time Banking and the Return of Mutual Aid
Steve Dubb
We Owe You Nothing: The Movement to Cancel Student Debt Gains Ground
Rithika Ramamurthy
Charitable Tax Reform: Why Half Measures Won’t Curb Plutocracy
Alan Davis
Green New Deal or Stale Old Tax-Break Scam? Getting Electric Vehicle Incentives Right
Greg LeRoy
Goodbye “Race Neutrality”—The Case for Race-Conscious Economic Policy
Dedrick Asante-Muhammad

Upcoming Webinars

Group Created with Sketch.
June 9th, 2 pm ET

Remaking the Economy

Wage Justice, Now!

Register
You might also like
Miners vs. Wall Street: Strikes in the Era of Asset...
Dr. Ericka Wills
Edgar Cahn’s Second Act: Time Banking and the Return of...
Steve Dubb
We Owe You Nothing: The Movement to Cancel Student Debt...
Rithika Ramamurthy
WOMEN OF COLOR IN POWER
Women of Color in Power

Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Subscribe
Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Authentic Leadership
Reclaiming Interrupted Lineages

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • Advertisers
  • Newsletters
  • Copyright

Subscribe to View Webinars

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.