Skip to main content

Beginning a Discussion of the Supreme Court's Term

Image result for arbitration

Another term of the US Supreme Court has come and gone. Of course it hasn't really ended for you, my devoted readers, until you've had a chance to see what Christopher Faille thinks of it.  So here we are.

There are many decisions this term that involve very important and topical matters that won't be discussed here or that (as in the case of state taxation of online sales) will only be glancingly mentioned. When that happens, it may be for no reason better than that they have been much covered and I have nothing in particular to add about them.

I was tempted, when I first started outlining this material, to spend a fair amount of space on LAGOS v. US, an interpretation of the criminal restitution statute, that is, a statute aimed at getting the guilty to pay for the costs of enforcing the law against them. But I have overcome that temptation. Here, instead, is a very summary statement. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer the Court adopted a narrow view of that statute, excluding from its scope the costs that the victim of a crime incurs in a private investigation of the offense.

The best pragmatic justification of LAGOS I've seen is that the court recognizes that most of the prison population in the US is drawn from the indigent, not from folks who can be made to cough up significant sums, so financial rewards of this sort constitute an utterly ineffective sort of remedy.

Coming Attractions 

So, what will I discuss this year? I'll spend most of the rest of this post on Epic Systems v. Lewis, the big collective-action-limiting decision of this term. Tomorrow, I'll turn to other non-constitutional cases (that is, cases that turn on the interpretation of statutes). In particular, tomorrow's portfolio will involve Wisconsin Central v. US, the SAS Institute case, and Chavez-Meza v. US. These deal, respectively, with the definition of "compensation" for tax purposes, patent law administrative challenges, and the use of the sentencing guidelines.

On Saturday we'll discuss some of the big constitutional cases of this term. There was: one on the assistance of counsel in the capital punishment context; unconstitutional vagueness on the term "violent felony;" compelled speech on the matter of abortions; and of course the much-anticipated wedding cake dispute out of Colorado.

Finally on Sunday we'll discuss gerrymandering. This was the "dog that didn't bark" of the October 2017 term. It was certainly reasonable to expect some broad landmark pronouncement from SCOTUS this time around, but the Justices managed to avoid it, leaving us to discuss THAT.

Collective FLSA Actions versus Individualized Arbitration

Without further ado then....

When employers break the law in their dealings with employees, it is often the case that they affect many employees, but that the damage to any individual employee is small (small as appellate courts see the world -- perhaps a few hundred dollars in each case -- not insignificant to the individuals in each case, but small enough to make litigation for it a 'bridge too far.') It may also be the case, though, that the collective harm is worth millions. This is precisely why the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides for "collective actions" in such cases -- similar to, though in principle distinct from, "class actions"

That is also why large firms nowadays often put individualized arbitration clauses into their employment contracts. The language of such clauses prohibits employees from combining these grievances in the way FLSA had contemplated. They say that if the employee has a dispute with the employer, the employee will, as an individual, take it to an arbitrator.

So: two private parties agree with each other to ignore the law in a certain respect. Normally, that would have no effect on the law at all. If Epic Systems wronged Lewis in some way, if Lewis believed that the wrong was one he shared with a lot of other people, then why should Lewis not repent of his rash decision to stick to individual arbitration? Why is that any more binding that a 'pinkie swear' in the face of a clear provision for collective action in the FLSA?

Employers answer: because of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925.

The FAA provides that a "written provision in ... a contract ... involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such ground as exist at law."

Employees answer by pointing to the "savings" clause in that language. The FLSA is a "ground" that exists "at law" as to why a specific class of such provisions should not be enforceable, and the FAA itself provides that such grounds will be respected.

Employers respond to that by pointing to various limited meanings that the savings language might be taken to possess. For example, it might refer only to old common law arguments voiding the force of contracts such as fraud and duress. If the employer held a gun to employees head and said, "Sign here!" or put the relevant language in fine print in Latin, then the employer might have had a ground that existed at law IN THE SENSE INTENDED HERE to ignore the arbitration clause later. Otherwise ... not.

So in the weeds of statutory interpretation this was a case about a narrow versus a broad reading of the savings clause in the FAA, which in turn could lead respectively to an unwaiveable versus a waiveable understanding of the collective action provision in the FLSA.

Yet nobody believes that the weeds of statutory interpretation are where this decision is to be understood. It was a raw fight over power. Marxists would describe the battle lines as capital versus labor. I would not, because I don't know if capital (as represented, say, by the stock price of the companies on the winning side) actually benefits from one reading over the other. This is a fight between some very well-paid employees engaged in managerial labor on the one hand and some not so well paid employees engaged, often, in old fashioned physical labor on the other.

The judicial practice of picking away at collective actions, using the FAA to this end, is an old one. Back in 1995, in the ALLIED-BRUCE TERMINIX case, Justice O'Connor said (in a concurring opinion), "The Court has abandoned any pretense of ascertaining congressional intent with respect to the Federal Arbitration Act, building instead, case by case, an edifice of its own creation."

Why has this happened? Why this trend? The answer has to be something more than that those managerial laborers are greedy. Haven't they always been greedy? What is constant does not explain what has changed.

But I'll leave matters there. See you tomorrow, for more adventures in statutory interpretation!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak