The Atlantic

How the Supreme Court Could Reshape Employment Law

The conservative justices’ interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act could cripple employee challenges to wage, hour, working-conditions, and job-status disputes.
Source: Eric Thayer / Getty Images

During Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination hearing last year, then-Senator Al Franken asked the nominee whether he had read a recent New York Times series about the use of arbitration to thwart consumer complaints against corporations.

Gorsuch said he had. “It made me think about a little bit of history,” he added. “It used to be back at common law that arbitration was disfavored because it was thought that everyone should go to trial, trials were the norm, Seventh Amendment and all that. And then in [1925] Congress passed a law called the Federal Arbitration Act … Congress expressed a judgment that people should arbitrate their disputes. It made a judgment, policy judgment in favor of arbitration, because it’s quicker, cheaper, easier for people.”

Gorsuch’s reading of history is, as we shall see, doubtful; but he was echoing orthodox conservative legal thought. The Federal Arbitration Act, many conservatives believe, is a kind of super-statute, a legal big bang that was intended to transform the court system, changing the very meaning of “Seventh Amendment and all that.” When originally enacted, the FAA was applied mostly to enforce agreements among businesses to settle their disputes out of court. But with the appointment of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s view of the FAA has expanded. Over the past

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from The Atlantic

The Atlantic4 min read
Amazon Decides Speed Isn’t Everything
Amazon has spent the past two decades putting one thing above all else: speed. How did the e-commerce giant steal business away from bookstores, hardware stores, clothing boutiques, and so many other kinds of retailers? By selling cheap stuff, but mo
The Atlantic4 min read
American Environmentalism Just Got Shoved Into Legal Purgatory
In a 6–3 ruling today, the Supreme Court essentially threw a stick of dynamite at a giant, 40-year-old legal levee. The decision overruled what is known as the Chevron doctrine, a precedent that governed how American laws were administered. In doing
The Atlantic4 min read
What the Supreme Court Doesn’t Get About Homelessness
The Supreme Court has just ripped away one of the rare shreds of legal protections available to homeless people. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court has decided that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, did not violate the Eighth Amendment by enforcing camping ba

Related Books & Audiobooks