SCOTUS: Corporations defeat Workers & Consumers, 5-4

[kpete]

Source: Daily Kos


SCOTUS: Corporations defeat Workers & Consumers, 5-4
by Adam B
Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 01:46:04 PM PDT

When Antonio Jackson was hired by Rent-A-Center as an account manager, his employment contract included a provision which specifically delegated to an arbitrator, “and not any federal, state, or local court or agency,” the exclusive authority “to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement.” That authority, the clause continued, extended to “any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.”

Jackson is African American, and he repeatedly sought promotions at the company. Each time one was available, he alleges, a less-senior non-African American was promoted instead. Jackson complained to store managers and later to Corporate's HR department. Ultimately, Jackson was promoted ... and then two months later, terminated without cause. Jackson sued Rent-A-Center in federal district court in 2007, alleging that he had been the victim of racial discrimination and retaliation.

Rent-A-Center filed a motion to dismiss, saying this was supposed to go to arbitration, with Jackson arguing in response that the arbitration agreement was so unconscionable (i.e., fundamentally unfair) that it should be up to a judge, not the arbitrator, to decide whether the agreement to arbitrate could be enforced. Jackson argued, basically, that in light of the parties’ unequal bargaining power and the fact that the agreement to arbitrate was presented to him as a non-negotiable condition of his employment, he lacked any meaningful opportunity to modify the terms of the Agreement and therefore did not meaningfully agree to signing away his right of access to the courts.

Why does this matter? As the SEIU and other pro-worker organizations put it in an amicus brief:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-497_RespondentAmCu6EmploymentRightsOrgs.pdf






Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/21/877980/-SCOTUS:-Corporations-defeat-WorkersConsumers,-5-4

[Dawson Leery]

1. Rent-A-Center is far more corrupt than any loan shark

of past days.

[Grinchie]

8. Amen to that.. You walk in the door and can feel it.

We investigated a temporary furnishing need a few years ago and I was shocked at how these outlets operate. They prey on stupid people, and the signs are all very visible, in your face, and very blatant.

I recall them insisting on a Social Security number to rent anything. I said that they are not paying me any salary, so I would not give it to them.. The salesman said "We can't trust the State Drivers License Number". Lol....


There is another outfit in California.. Aaaron's if I recall, that is just as corrupt.

We found a great solution in the end.. Cardboard boxes for tables and an inflatible bed! Lol. No TV, just high speed internet. Salvation army for utensils and dishes.

All for 1/20th the cost of these so called Rant-A-Center scams.

[sasquuatch55]

16. RAC always meant Rape- A - Customer to me!

nt

[Dawson Leery]

17. Aaron's in in Connecticut too. Sadly.

[Iowa]

21. My daughter sleeps on an inflatable bed...

She says she never intends to by a traditional bed. She's been doing it for two years. And for less that $100 she got a ton of furniture at the local Goodwill that was almost as good as new. No TV either - just internet. She's a recent college grad.

[Ter]

24. You sure about that?

I was late once, and they didn't break my legs. They didn't even threaten me.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Just more Republican Corporate Supremacy.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[SpiralHawk]

3. "We aplogize." - Republicon Homelanders

"We are soooo sorry that there were 4 votes in support of the human beings, and only a measly 5 in support of our Corporate Payola-Master Overlords."

- Republicon Homelanders

[cstanleytech]

4. Sucks for him but

he did it to himself by agreeing to abide by their rules.
Now if he had gone to arbitration, lost and then been able to prove the arbitrator was biased and or corrupt he might have been able to win but he didnt do that.

[high density]

19. I've signed a similar thing for arbitration.

I've also signed a non-compete that essentially said I couldn't make a living after I stopped working for the company. The option I had was sign or be jobless.

The Supreme Court setting this precedent is not good for any worker. It basically says that any worker that has a problem with a company has to settle it under that company's terms. It seems we are now outsourcing justice to corporations as well.

[cstanleytech]

28. Yes but if you ever had a dispute

and lost in arbitration and could later prove the arbitrator was biased or corrupt you could probably sue them in a court, the SCOTUS ruling didnt address that.
The other point is he knowingly agreed to this when he went to work for them, he cant claim ignorance about the arbitration clause and he has to abide by it much like how if you buy a house with a HOA is you have to abide by the rules of the HOA.

[msongs]

5. discrimination by race is federal law violation - employees do not have to waive that protection nt

[MilesColtrane]

6. In all fairness to Rent-A-Center, they wanted any lawsuits against them...

decided by military tribunal, but they settled for an arbiter.

The American justice system: the greatest in the world *

* (not applicable to corporate employees or suspected terrorists)

[pattmarty]

7. Jeez, I wonder who the five were?

[caseymoz]

10. Well, their votes aren't secret. nt

[pattmarty]

11. Sorry, I should have used the

:sarcasm:

[elleng]

9. Called an 'adhesion contract.'

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adhesion-contract/

[Jefferson23]

12. What a shock, huh?

:sarcasm:

[zeemike]

13. I wish they would just rule that we are under corporate law.

And what ever they want to do is fine.
That way we would not have to bother with filing law suits and wasting time and money.

[high density]

20. It seems they are building that framework very fast

Money = free speech
Forced corporate arbitration = new courts

Seems the Supreme Court might put itself out of a job with these decisions.

[truedelphi]

25. And I am at the point where the elections shoul djust be called "auctions"

With the money normally spent on campaign ads instead to be going directly to the local school districts.

At least that way maybe some teachers would get their jobs re-instated.

[Joe Bacon]

14. I'd like to thank the wimpy Democrats who let Alito on the court!

And another set of cheers for the wimpy Democrats who let Roberts get on there, too!

[lonestarnot]

22. Disgusting isn't it.

[depakid]

27. Among other things- the man was demonstrably unethical

having misled- or lied to Congress about whether he'd recuse himself from cases involving a company that he had a pecuniary interest in.

Once confirmed- he presided over just such a case and ruled in the company's favor.

[Better Believe It]

15. K & R

[kelly1mm]

18. Predictability. That is what the Court and the Corporations want. That

is the basis of the legal system and why it takes decades (sometimes centuries) for any fundamental shifts in the Court. Thus, even when the facts of a certain case make it plainly unfair, the law still trumps. This is the one small (very small) point I can see with some of the business groups attacks on the President. They argue that it is too risky right now to invest because tax rates, new regulations, and health insurence reform are up in the air. I serve on the board of diretors of a small non-profit mental health provider and even we are holding back on hireing as we don't know what is going on with health care and medicare/medicaid reimbursement rates. Like it or not, wanting (needing?) predictability and risk assesment are parts of the US economic model.

[Odin2005]

23. IMPEACH THE FASCIST 5!!!

I'm getting sick of these usual 5 idiots screwing us over! :grr:

[truedelphi]

26. Unfotunately, Kagan has some very unhealthy fixations on Big Corporations herself.

Yet another Love Child from Monsanto.

[cascadiance]

29. My feelings EXACTLY!

It's way past time. They are challenging the congress to do so, and basically saying you can't touch us now after Citizen's United. We need to make this along with public campaign financing, and a constitutional amendment that corporations aren't people our #1 priorities that we rant about in our protest movements. Of course they'll try to find some ways of calling our movements as "terrorist" so that we can all get put away with their decision yesterday.

[femrap]

30. I think the

Corporation can murder you and your heirs have to go to arbitration.

It's sickening.

Can I say that those 5 are assholes! Can we impeach them now? Please.