Skip to comments.U.S. top court backs companies over worker class-action claims
Posted on 05/21/2018 11:36:50 AM PDT by freedumb2003
I think Yahoo or Rueters is link only. Bottom line: a contract willingly signed by an employee to eschew class-actions suits is actually a contract willingly signed by an employee to eschew class-actions suits.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
The rule of (contract) law is essential for a function economic system in society.
Justice Kennedy decides the law again. He is the law.
What they did not "back," and the minority did, was the right of rich Democrat class action lawyers to fleece millions out of employers while giving "crumbs" to the worker/plaintiffs.
Been firing liberals since 2008. See tagline. 4 of them tried. Then we sued these clowns just for fun when they lost. I hate liberals.
Never mind that most corporate CEOs went to the same colleges, drank the same Kool-Aid, and require their employees to sign virtually identical contracts.
So really you can't just choose to work for some other company, but then why would you want to work for someone else and be a wage slave loser?
Everyone should start his/her own company and work for him/herself. Otherwise they're losers.
Of course you may not get the major corporations to subcontract out to your company if you don't have the appropriate sexual harassment, diversity, affirmative hiring, etc. practices. And if you don't want to do all the work yourself you'll have to hire losers who want to be your wage slaves.
Moral of the story: Lawyers eff things up.
Is this about severance pay being held hostage to NDA's and no future litigation over H-1B or other worker discrimination actions?
Generally speaking, a "paycheck" in its common use is in exchange for services rendered. "Severance" is supplemental pay to compensate a long-term employee for sudden loss of income, usually to cover household expenses until other employment can be obtained.
Linking severance pay with waiving of rights is a de facto signing a contract under duress. If the issue is that workers signed the contracts under duress and now have regrets, then you might get away with saying that a contract is a contract.
For the workers who did not sign the contract but still demand to sue for severance, that's another matter entirely as there is no underlying contract.
>>The rule of (contract) law is essential for a function economic system in society.<<
I have had some knockdown, drag-outs here on FR about the ability for an individual to contract away their Constitutional Rights.
Other than maybe voting and rights related to prosecution, every single right in the BOR can be signed away. Perhaps even voting (who knows?).
You can certainly sign away the parts of the 4th and 5th as part of an employment contract.
I am sure some will challenge me by examples of what CAN’T be signed away but I suggest that a contract with the military substituting the UCMJ for USC negates most or all of those.
That will be news if he actually announces. I posted similar story as chat earlier.
Sometimes rumors are lies.
>>Everyone should start his/her own company and work for him/herself. Otherwise they’re losers.<<
That’s a little harsh. Everyone has their price. I am willing to bet for $XX a year you would go to work for someone else (fill in XX yourself).
Not everyone has the personality to own their own business. It is frightening, hard and requires a risk profile many do not have.
And Kennedy might retire next month.
>>I read the article, and this does not appear to be about the recent stories of workers forced to sign contracts to train their replacements in order to receive severance pay.<<
Yes, well who am I to correct people’s comments on issues not covered in the article?
My reading was this was about voluntarily signing away rights to class actions against the employer.
Wait till someone writes a contract that makes the employee agree to binding arbitration in sexual harassment or race discrimination cases.
That should tie our entire Federal Court system in knots for the next thirteen years.
>>Wait till someone writes a contract that makes the employee agree to binding arbitration in sexual harassment or race discrimination cases.
That should tie our entire Federal Court system in knots for the next thirteen years.<<
This case would probably tip the scales to the employer. I have not read the case but I suspect it deals more with the ability of Employees to sign their own rights away.
But I think there are federal laws on the books NOT including the right to class action that may be controlling.
I would be like trying to sign away the ADA (the “don’t hire a disabled person no matter what” actp) protections.
On the one hand, I can see protection against class-action in the workforce when the unstated claim is that employment, job performance and pay, and assignments and promotions are based on an individual's merits. If people think they were discriminated against, they should individually sue.
From a collective perspective, if this were a collective bargaining situation (aka, unions), then this provision likely would not have been included. If the individuals want to collectivize, then perhaps they need an outside force to bring the suit against the company, such as a district attorney if there are systemic EEOC violations?
Class actions only enrich the lawyers, one BOTH SIDES. Companies pay millions and millions to defend and the plaintiff lawyers get all the legal fees from the verdict or settlement. Wronged employees, if there were even wronged in the first place, get coupons a few bucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.