-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:
Today the U.S. Supreme1 Court delivered a sweeping2 victory to American business and an equally sweeping defeat to American workers. The court gave the green light to employers who want to bar their workers from bringing class-action suits in court as a condition of employment. The vote was 5 to 4. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports.
NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE3: The conservative majority upheld and extended the growing practice adopted by American businesses, namely requiring workers to agree as a condition of employment not to go to court over wage and hour disputes but to instead submit their claims to binding4 arbitration5 individually. Today the justices added that employers may bar class-action suits in court as well. Employment lawyers were elated.
Lawyer Ron Chapman, who represents management in labor6-management disputes, said he expects small and large businesses alike to immediately move to impose these binding arbitration contracts in order to eliminate the fear of costly7 class-action verdicts from juries.
RON CHAPMAN: It gives employers the green light to eliminate their single largest employment law risks with the stroke of a pen.
TOTENBERG: Many workers don't even know that they've waived9 their rights to go to court as a condition of employment. Indeed, the lead plaintiff in the case was an IT worker at Epic10, the giant health care software development company. He got an email notifying all employees that they would be barred from joining any workplace class-action lawsuit11. By clicking that they received the notice, it turned out he was agreeing to the contract as a condition of continued employment.
The Epic workers as well as junior accountants at Ernst & Young and employees at a Murphy Oil gas station went to the National Labor Relations Board contending that such class-action bans were a violation12 of federal law. That law guarantees the rights of workers to engage in activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or any other concerted activities. The NLRB agreed with the workers in 2014, as did the Obama administration Justice Department. But the Trump13 administration reversed that decision and sided with the employers when the case was argued in the Supreme Court.
Today Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court majority, said that provision of the 1935 Labor Act that the workers rested their case on is clearly trumped14 by the Federal Arbitration Act that was enacted15 10 years earlier. He said that Congress never intended a provision aimed at collective bargaining in the union context to guarantee workers the right to bring class actions in court.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a rare oral dissent16 from the bench, called out the majority for what she said was an egregiously17 wrong decision. The court endorses18 nothing more than an arm twisted, take-it-or-leave-it agreement forced upon employees, she said. She noted19 that the workers' claims are usually small. Indeed, she noted that the typical Ernst & Young employee would likely have to spend $200,000 to recover only $1,800 in overtime20 pay.
For this reason, she said, relatively21 few workers avail themselves of the arbitration option, and many are fearful of retaliation22. The inevitable23 result of today's decision, she added, will be huge under enforcement of federal and state laws designed to advance the well-being24 of vulnerable workers. It's up to Congress, she said, to correct the court's action now.
Labor law experts said today's decision likely will present increasing problems for the #MeToo movement and for other civil rights class actions claiming discrimination based on race, gender25 and religion. There's no transparency in most binding arbitration agreements, and they often include non-disclosure provisions. Yale law professor Judith Resnik observes that today's decision applies to all manner of class actions.
JUDITH RESNIK: What this says is that when you buy something, use something or work for someone, that entity26 can require you to waive8 your rights to use public courts.
TOTENBERG: Cornell labor law professor Angela Cornell expects the number of these litigation waivers to skyrocket now.
ANGELA CORNELL: What we see is the privatization of our justice system.
TOTENBERG: Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.
1 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 sweeping | |
adj.范围广大的,一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 byline | |
n.署名;v.署名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 arbitration | |
n.调停,仲裁 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 labor | |
n.劳动,努力,工作,劳工;分娩;vi.劳动,努力,苦干;vt.详细分析;麻烦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 costly | |
adj.昂贵的,价值高的,豪华的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 waive | |
vt.放弃,不坚持(规定、要求、权力等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 waived | |
v.宣布放弃( waive的过去式和过去分词 );搁置;推迟;放弃(权利、要求等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 epic | |
n.史诗,叙事诗;adj.史诗般的,壮丽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 lawsuit | |
n.诉讼,控诉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 trumped | |
v.(牌戏)出王牌赢(一牌或一墩)( trump的过去分词 );吹号公告,吹号庆祝;吹喇叭;捏造 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 enacted | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 dissent | |
n./v.不同意,持异议 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 egregiously | |
adv.过份地,卓越地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 endorses | |
v.赞同( endorse的第三人称单数 );在(尤指支票的)背面签字;在(文件的)背面写评论;在广告上说本人使用并赞同某产品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 overtime | |
adj.超时的,加班的;adv.加班地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 relatively | |
adv.比较...地,相对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 retaliation | |
n.报复,反击 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 well-being | |
n.安康,安乐,幸福 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 gender | |
n.(生理上的)性,(名词、代词等的)性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 entity | |
n.实体,独立存在体,实际存在物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|