Trump's gift to the plutes just keeps on giving

Split 5 to 4, Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Class Arbitrations

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that workers at a California business could not band together to seek compensation for what they said was their employer’s failure to protect their data.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservative members in the majority.

The decision was the latest in a line of rulings allowing companies to use arbitration provisions to bar both class actions in court and class-wide arbitration proceedings. 

In earlier 5-to-4 decisions concerning fine-print contracts with consumers and employment agreements, the court ruled that arbitration provisions can require disputes to be resolved one by one.

Those rulings can make it difficult for consumers and workers to pursue minor claims even where their collective harm was substantial.

. . . .

All four of the court’s liberal members wrote dissents. 

Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority had created a body of law whose purpose was to frustrate class actions and class-wide arbitrations.

She said the court should have endorsed a common principle of contract interpretation that resolves ambiguities against the party — here, Lamps Plus — that drafted the provision. 

Using ellipses to indicate a skeptical pause, she wrote that Wednesday’s decision would never have appeared among decisions by the court “save that this case involves … class proceedings.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quoting an earlier dissent, said the decision was the court’s latest effort “to deny employees and consumers ‘effective relief against powerful economic entities.’”

“Propelled by the court’s decisions,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “mandatory arbitration clauses in employment and consumer contracts have proliferated.”