In a huge win for workers rights and protections,
the Supreme Court actually ruled against rail company Norfolk Southern and
ended up siding with one of their former employees.
Now, the case centered on where employees can file lawsuits
against these companies, and this particular employee did file
a lawsuit against Norfolk Southern in Pennsylvania specifically.
So in a five to four decision, SCOTUS ruled,
yeah, he can file that lawsuit in Pennsylvania.
Now let's understand what's actually transpiring here.
Now, this story all started back in 2017, when a former Norfolk Southern
employee by the name of Robert Mallory was diagnosed with colon cancer.
Now Mallory filed a lawsuit against the company alleging that his illness
stemmed from workplace exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials.
He also claimed that the company really failed to provide safety equipment and
other resources to keep workers safe.
And given the derailing of Norfolk Southern trains,
given the cost cutting efforts that they've taken in recent years,
which has made operating these trains less safe.
I would not be surprised if we found that the employees accusations had merit, okay?
But nonetheless, although he had never worked in the state of Pennsylvania,
Mallory decided to file his lawsuit there.
Although he had never worked in Pennsylvania, Mallory filed his lawsuit in
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas because his attorneys were from
the state and he thought he could get the fairest access to justice there.
Now at the time, Norfolk Southern asserts that being forced to defend the case
in Pennsylvania would pose an undue burden,
thereby violating its constitutional right to due process.
Even though Norfolk Southern owns thousands of miles of track in
the Keystone State, the Philadelphia County Court sided with the railroad and
dismissed the case.
So it ended up getting ruled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
They decided to side with Norfolk Southern, but
the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case upon appeal and
luckily decided to rule in favor of Mallory, the employee here.
Now, let's talk about what the outcome was and
what the reasoning was by these justices.
The high court ruled that Pennsylvania's consent-by-registration law
requiring an out-of-state firm to answer in the Commonwealth any suits
against it in exchange for status as a registered foreign corporation.
And the benefits that entails,
does not violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
John, what are your thoughts?
>> Yeah, so we often like to remind the audience of where our expertise ends.
And obviously, I am not a lawyer, although I am wearing a tie right now, so
I can understand why you would be a bit confused.
>> I mean, you're already qualified if you ask me.
>> I look lawyersque, but I'm not actually, I didn't do it.
And I say that because I am sure that I am wrong.
And there are very good reasons why this ended up the way it did.
And I like the outcome, but I'm not sure if he
didn't work in the state, then theoretically,
he can sue in any state where they operate.
Shouldn't he have to work in a state where the crime happened to him?
>> It depends on the state's regulations, right?
So in Pennsylvania, in order for businesses to operate there,
they have to agree to allow lawsuits to be filed against them in those states.
>> Yeah, you covered that, I totally buy that.
I'm just saying, does that make common sense?
>> I don't really care in this case.
>> I understand that.
>> That's where his lawyers are based.
And by the way, okay, so hold on.
So as someone who works for the rail company, I mean,
if you're operating the trains and the trains go through various states, I mean,
couldn't you argue that you've worked in those states?
>> He said he didn't work in those states.
>> I don't know if that was the case with him, right?
>> Yeah, so- >> But
his lawyers are based in Pennsylvania.
>> Okay, so let me ask you something. >> Theoretically,
he could hire lawyers anywhere but.
>> So he wants to file the lawsuit in Pennsylvania because that's where his
lawyers are and also because he thinks he has the best chance at justice there.
>> I get it, pragmatically.
>> There are other states that tend to have certain regulations in place that
favor the companies over the best interests of the employees.
>> All of them.
>> I can understand that, right?
So why is it that Norfolk Southern gets to dictate where the lawsuit would be filed
as opposed to the employee who's filing the lawsuit in the first place?
>> Well, I don't think they should- >> Norfolk Southern wanted
him to file the lawsuit in a state that's far friendlier to business interests.
>> My standard would be, where he worked, where he was exposed to asbestos.
That would be my expectation.
Obviously, I'm not in charge, again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm also not a king.
Yeah, the reason that I bring it up is, obviously I like the outcome.
We agree on that.
I'm already trying to sort of cast my mind forward to how conservatives would
sue some company that sells medication, abortion in a different state,
but they sue it in Texas so they can get them fined for $10 billion.
I don't know if Texas has the same sort of consent by registration law as
Pennsylvania, but I told myself I need to look up who composed the five,
because sometimes the Supreme Court will do something that can seem really good,
but it is setting up a future decision.
That's my fear.
>> Okay, so let's talk a little bit.
>> I'm not trying to be a contrarian.
>> No, no, I'm gonna answer your question.
So the individuals at the Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of
the employee here included Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion,
the majority opinion, joined by Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito.
I know this sounds like not good so far, but
then you've got Sonya Sotomayor and Katanji Brown Jackson.
It was a five four ruling, okay?
>> Okay, that's a toughie.
>> So more on that, at issue, writes The Wall Street Journal,
was a Pennsylvania law requiring the companies operating within the state
consent to lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania courts,
even if the allegations involved conduct that took place elsewhere.
So it's really about state law here.
Norfolk Southern argued that imposing such liability on the railroad,
which is based in Georgia and operates in 22 states, plus the District of Columbia,
violated the constitution's due-process clause.
But the Supreme Court,
the majority of supreme Court justices disagreed with that.
>> It is incredibly interesting.
>> Yeah. >> I don't know that I've ever
heard about something like this.
>> I didn't know that John was anti-worker, but
we've learned something new every day on not this show.
>> Not this particular worker, I hate all of them.
They're peasants, and they need to be ground into the dirt.
No, I'm trying to be consistent.
I know it's pointless.
There's no why would somebody who talks about politics on the internet be
consistent?
I am trying to do that, though.
It's pointless, and it reflects poorly on me and on the network, so I apologize.
>> So let me give you a little bit of the reasoning from Gorsuch, who,
again wrote the majority opinion in this case.
States required consent to liability in exchange for
the rights to exploit the local market and to receive the full range of
benefits enjoyed by in-state corporations, he wrote.
Norfolk Southern, Gorsuch said,
had complied with the Pennsylvania requirement for decades.
So he's basically saying, listen, bro, Norfolk Southern, all you executives,
you guys agreed to this, and you've agreed to it and have been agreeing to it for
literally decades.
Now the chickens have come home to roost, okay?
So the lawsuit has been filed in Pennsylvania.
You have agreed to lawsuits being filed against you in the state of Pennsylvania
in order to operate in the state.
So, sorry.
Now, there's an interesting perspective from one of our members, and I actually-
>> Uh-oh.
>> No, this is good.
I actually think there might be something to this.
So Repeched, The Political Catboy writes in and says, I think the Supreme Court and
the Democrats at a large degree have noticed that people are upset.
The cost of living is just unreal and unsustainable.
The corporations and
SCOTUS have gone just a little too far with their recent antics and scandals.
People aren't just noticing, they're taking notice.
People are unionizing and coming together.
Basically, the point that our viewer is trying to make here is,
maybe the Supreme Court is, are we the baddies?
And they're a little worried about maybe distrust toward these institutions,
and maybe they're just trying to be good boys and girls for
now and rule in a way that actually favors employees over employers.
I don't know if that's really the motivating factor here.
What I do know is that the ruling that we're talking about today, the ruling
that we discussed on the show recently, which was also pretty pro-worker.
These are good decisions from a very conservative Supreme Court, and
I'll take what we can get.
>> And the election won yesterday, too.
>> Right. >> We are fair.
>> Right.
>> They're insane radical.
>> He's got this disdain for workers all of a sudden though.
>> I felt fair when I said it.
But anyway, yes, we give credit when credit is due.
>> Right. >> They're insane radicals.
One of them is a drunk and a sexual assaulter.
Another belonged to a Christian cult, but they did some good stuff.
>> Mixed bag.
>> You decide which is which.