In Lamps Plus v. Varela, the Supreme Court held yesterday that “[u]nder the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.” In the case, Lam... More »
Yesterday Democrats in both the House and the Senate reintroduced the Equality Act, a bill that would bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Forty-four business groups, inclu... More »
The Supreme Court’s opinion in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira is rightly being heralded as a victory for workers. The Court, after all, has finally found a mandatory arbitration agreement that it won’t enforce. But it seems odd that this Supreme Court would hand w... More »
In its first opinion of the term, the Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) ruled in favor of the employees in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, holding that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to all public employers regardless of employee he... More »
On Saturday afternoon, the Senate confirmed the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 50-48 vote is among the closest in history, and the tenor of battles over Kavanaugh’s fitness revealed and further rived a divided a country. Much c... More »
On the cusp of an ideological majority for the first time in over half a century, the U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term today, again – like in 2016 – with an 8-Justice lineup. While the fate of the current nominee is uncertain, the Court is slated for wh... More »
Janus, the Court’s case about public sector agency fees that will be decided this term, is a case that could be framed in two ways. On the one hand, Janus is a case about compelled political speech: the government, by imposing agency fees as a condition of emp... More »
Advocates challenging forced labor practices are largely relying on the Trafficking Victims Protective Act (TVPA). However, as Leora Smith noted, the Thirteenth Amendment is “[l]urking in the background of [these] case[s].” Smith posits that advocates may be r... More »
Mark Janus’s lawyers are desperate to have the Court decide Janus v. AFSCME without considering any facts. Janus is an Illinois state employee, who is represented by AFSCME Council 31. Like all other employees in his bargaining unit, he is required to pay fa... More »
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday in Janus. Analyses report that, as expected, there were pointed questions for AFSCME and Illinois by Justices Alito and Kennedy; the four liberal justices took every opportunity to highlight the potential effect... More »
The Supreme Court has posted the transcript of this morning’s oral argument in Janus. Notably, Justice Gorsuch, expected to be the deciding vote, did not speak during the argument. We’ll have more coverage of the oral argument later this week. More »
In advance of Monday’s oral argument in Janus, Bloomberg and the New York Times consider what might become of public sector unions if Abood is overruled. In These Times has a long feature on the advocacy groups who are funding not only Janus but also oth... More »
April 25th, 2019