Today, they delivered another win for
businesses that are pushing employees into arbitration unfortunately.
Now this ruling was written by Justice Samuel Alito and
it essentially kills a very progressive law coming out of California known as
the Private Attorneys General Act.
And that's something California legislature adopted in 2004 to protect,
protect the rights of workers.
Now, before we dive into the opinion itself,
let's talk a little bit about this act.
So this is what we know for the LA Times.
The Private Attorneys General Act said lawyers may file claims against
an employer seeking penalties on behalf of a group of employees and for
multiple violations of the labor code.
Three-fourths of the money recovered is paid to the state.
Lawmakers said the state's labor laws were going enforced even when
workers were cheated out of their wages are not paid extra for overtime work.
They said the state did not have enough staff of its own to police industries
where labor law violations are the most rampant,
including agriculture, garment, construction, carwash and restaurants.
And so even though there was a short staffing issue in California and
laws were being violated by employers.
Well, the US Supreme Court decided that they still weren't down for
what California was trying to do.
So let's look at what the case at issue is.
So the case before the court was Viking River Cruises vs Moriana.
It arose when Angie Moriana quit her job in 2017 as a sales agent in Los Angeles
for Viking River Cruises and alleged she did not receive her last paycheck on time.
She then became the lead plaintiff in a private suit alleging multiple violations
on behalf of a large group of Viking employees.
Now, Viking objected and said that she and the other employees had agreed to
arbitrate any dispute arising out of a relating chair employment.
Moreover, they had waived any right to any class collective or
private attorney general action.
So the Supreme Court and reviewing whether that it was lawful for
her to proceed with these claims underneath this act or under this act.
The Supreme Court ended up siding with the cruise liner holding that
the Federal Arbitration Act overrides California Law.
Now, this is what the court noted, California is the only state to authorize
such private suits as a means of enforcing its labor laws, the justices said.
But by doing so, the state allows employees to escape the binding
arbitration agreement they signed when they were hired.
And oddly enough, the majority of the justices signed onto this one,
it was about 8-1, that's right.
The only person who ended up dissenting was justice Clarence Thomas, and
the only reason he did dissent is because he doesn't think that federal arbitration
that the act applies in state courts.
So it wasn't because he was looking to look out for workers in California.
No, it was on a whole different principle, but that essentially tells you,
Sotomayor is backing the in applicability of this law here,
even though it does uplift workers.
That it probably did not necessarily jive with the law itself,
what do you think Wallace?
>> To me, this jobs with what the Supreme Court exists to do,
which is reaffi and reaffirm the power of capital interests.
These people are always going to side on the side of business, I think,
traditionally conservative judges, they didn't really bother
with the culture war type of stuff, like the Roe v Wade type of stuff.
They usually would leave that kinda stuff alone and
this is exactly the kind of case that the Supreme Court lives for,
to basically make sure that at every turn,
that the money, the capitalists are protected.
So I'm not surprised that they would strike down a state law.
Even though just the other day, they were like, well,
whatever state wants to come up with abortion sanctions,
they should be able to do that no matter what the federal statute is.
So this, this shouldn't surprise anybody,
this is what this body honestly lives to do.
>> Yeah, and the thing is, it's like, okay, so as a litigator, I appreciate
the fact that even if you're looking to help people that there are rules and
that they do need to be applied.
They do need to be followed, so we can have consistency there at the same time,
we've seen Scotty's time after time act like the rules didn't exist.
They talk precedent, but then when they want to stray from it, they'll create
manufacture and bastardize anything they want to, to get the result that they want.
So while I appreciate that in this instance, they did apply the rules,
they did apply the federal arbitration act and how it does apply,
even if it means that California workers end up suffering.
I can appreciate that if it were done consistently, but by virtue of the fact
that this court is, I should say the right wing leaning element of this court.
Is looking to reshape our nation regardless of what President is and
want to apply the rules whenever it suits them.
That's when I'm just like, no, this this doesn't work.
You call audibles all the time, you're not abiding by the rules and so
I still have no confidence in you whatsoever.
>> Yeah, and it's hard to believe that if the shoes were reversed and
it was basically the employer side that was being stiffed by this law.
It's hard to believe that the Supreme Court justices would
have come to this opinion.
I find that, damn they're impossible to believe honestly.