The U.S. Supreme Court docket read oral arguments in 4 instances past week, with Justice Clarence Thomas collaborating remotely after getting discharged from the hospital. The Federal Arbitration Act took center stage in two of the four situations. Other issues just before the Court docket integrated the extent of Congress’ war powers less than Report 1 of the U.S. Structure.
Beneath is a quick summary of the cases the Court docket viewed as:
Southwest Airways Co. v. Saxon: The situation includes Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which states that the FAA does not apply “to contracts of work of seamen, railroad staff, or any other class of employees engaged in international or interstate commerce.” In Circuit Town Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001), the Supreme Court docket held that Area 1 applies only to interstate “transportation workers.” Due to the fact the Courtroom did not outline the time period “transportation worker,” the lower courts have unsuccessful to continuously implement Circuit City’s holding. The dilemma right before the Court docket is “[w]hether staff who load or unload goods from cars that journey in interstate commerce, but do not physically transportation this kind of merchandise them selves, are interstate “transportation workers” exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.”
LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company: The case will involve harm promises brought Union Pacific Railroad Business employee, Bradley LeDure, below the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA).The justices have agreed to decide “[w]hether a locomotive is in use on a railroad’s line and matter to the Locomotive Inspection Act and its security laws when its prepare can make a short term prevent in a railyard as portion of its unitary journey in interstate commerce, or no matter whether this sort of use does not resume right until the locomotive has remaining the garden as portion of a absolutely assembled prepare, as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit below, opposite to the selections of the Supreme Court and other circuits.”
Torres v. Texas Office of General public Security: The situation facilities on the federal Uniformed Providers Employment and Reemployment Legal rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which gives that “[a] particular person who is a member of … a uniformed services shall not be denied … reemployment … or any advantage of work by an employer on the foundation of that membership….” Congress enacted e USERRA pursuant to its War Powers under Post 1 of the Structure, recognizing that unremedied employment discrimination by point out businesses dependent on military services could interfere with the nation’s “ability to deliver for a robust national defense.” USERRA’s trigger of motion from state employers may possibly be pursued only in point out courts, which a Texas court docket found to be unconstitutional simply because Congress lacks the electricity to authorize lawsuits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its War Powers. The justice need to now determine “whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its War Powers.”
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana: In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), and Epic Programs Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), the Supreme Courtroom held that when events concur to take care of their disputes by individualized arbitration, those people agreements are totally enforceable underneath the FAA. Although California courts follow Concepcion and Epic when a occasion to an individualized arbitration agreement attempts to assert course-motion claims, they refuse to do so when a party to these kinds of an arrangement asserts agent statements less than the California Non-public Attorneys Typical Act (PAGA), which—like a class action—allows aggrieved employees to seek financial awards on a agent foundation on behalf of other personnel. Accordingly, the Court docket has agreed to determine “[w]hether the Federal Arbitration Act calls for enforcement of a bilateral arbitration arrangement giving that an worker can’t raise representative claims, which includes below PAGA.”
Conclusions in all of the higher than cases are anticipated just before the Court’s current phrase ends in June. Be sure to look at back for updates.