Quelle Surprise!

[prole]

In rarity, Supreme Court sides with workers over employers

Tue Mar 22, 3:28 pm ET

 

If an employee verbally complains to his boss about a workplace issue, is it legal to fire him in retaliation? The Supreme Court, which in recent years has gained a reputation for siding with businesses over workers, today said no.

 

Here's the issue: Kevin Kasten told his employer, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., that the time clocks in its Portage, Wisc. factory were placed in a location which prevented workers from being paid for the time they spent putting on and taking off their protective work gear. The company responded by moving the clocks, and firing Kasten.

 

Kasten sued under the 1938Â Fair Labor Standards Act, which prohibits retaliation against a worker who has "filed a complaint" against an employer. But Saint-Gobain's lawyers argued that the complaint had to be written for the law to apply, and an appeals court had agreed.

 

But by a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court sided with Kasten, overturning the lower court. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority: "Why would Congress want to limit the enforcement scheme's effectiveness by inhibiting use of the act's complaint procedure by those who would find it difficult to reduce their complaints to writing, particularly illiterate, less educated, or overworked workers?"

 

Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, saying that workers have to complain to a government agency or court. Justice Kagan did not take part because she had previously worked on it as the Obama administration's solicitor general.

 

The decision was noteworthy because in recent years, the Roberts court has by and large sided with employers over workers in such cases. One recent study found that the Roberts court has ruled for business interests 61 percent of the time, as compared to 46 percent in the last five years of the Rehnquist court.

 

Retaliatory firing of workers may be on the rise, thanks to the high unemployment rate. There are currently five jobless workers for every one opening, meaning employers may feel more comfortable firing difficult workers, knowing that they can easily find replacements.

[Off_White]

Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented

 

Quelle Surprise!

[tvashtarkatena]

"VICTORY! Court Says Plaintiffs Can Challenge Bush Wiretapping Law

 

In a huge victory for privacy and the rule of law, a federal appeals court today reinstated our landmark lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a statute that gives the executive branch virtually unchecked power to collect Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls.

 

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive and sometimes privileged telephone and e-mail communications with colleagues, clients, journalistic sources, witnesses, experts, foreign government officials and victims of human rights abuses located outside the United States.

 

A federal district court dismissed the case in August 2009, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have the right to challenge the new surveillance law because they could not prove that their own communications had been monitored under it.

 

But with the support of law professors, the NYC Bar Association, the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press and many others, we appealed that decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

 

"Today, the appeals court reversed the lower court decision, finding that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the law even though they cannot show to a certainty that the government is acquiring their communications. According to today's ruling, "the FAA has put the plaintiffs in a lose-lose situation: either they can continue to communicate sensitive information electronically and bear a substantial risk of being monitored under a statute they allege to be unconstitutional, or they can incur financial and professional costs to avoid being monitored. Either way, the FAA directly affects them."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

"Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, saying that workers have to complain to a government agency or court."

 

That's idiotic.

[billcoe]

I had seen that positive story and was thinking of posting it Pat, but figured you'd be along sooner or later. Congrats to you, the ACLU, and all American citizens. Should be a long and interesting road from here.

[tvashtarkatena]

It ain't over til its over, which is never.

[Hugh Conway]

"Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, saying that workers have to complain to a government agency or court."

 

That's idiotic.

 

I'm actually curious to read the logical gymnastics they used to reach this outcome

[prole]

"Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, saying that workers have to complain to a government agency or court."

 

That's idiotic.

 

I'm actually curious to read the logical gymnastics they used to reach this outcome

 

[tvashtarkatena]

"Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, saying that workers have to complain to a government agency or court."

 

That's idiotic.

 

I'm actually curious to read the logical gymnastics they used to reach this outcome

 

Vintage Natural Law thinking: The Constitution only regulates Gubmint - Business is like God, it can do whatev.

[tvashtarkatena]

In reality, Budeep Budeep's is too busy thinking about his next grope. Anton's too busy quietly masturbating under his robe in disgust at all the licentiousness in the world.

[prole]

[Jim]

Scalia is sharp as a tack - but evil. Thomas? Dumb as a stump. How the heck did that guy ever get considered? Oh, yea.