By: Gabrielle Sferra
As the Supreme Court 2021-2022 Term comes to a close, three recent opinions by the Court have impacted the status quo of labor relations and employment law. The three cases, passed during the final month of the Supreme Court’s Term, impact the definition of workers under the federal arbitration act, workers compensations laws in Washington, and arbitration protocols.
Southwest Airlines v. Saxon looked at the classification of airline employees as a class of workers exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). 142 S. Ct. 1783, 1787 (2022). In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court held that Latrice Saxon, a ramp supervisor for Southwest Airlines at Chicago Midway International Airport, qualified as a member of a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. As written in §1 of the FAA, those exempt from the arbitration statute are “seamen, railroad employees or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. (i). In his opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that interpreting the language in the statute required an “ordinary, contemporary, common” interpretation. (ii). Because Saxon works in air transportation, performs activities related to interstate commerce, and loads cargo on and off a vestibule used for interstate commerce, there is clear support for Saxon’s role to fall into this classification. (iii).
The impact of the decision is not overtly apparent, but does provide a narrow exception to the FAA. Justice Thomas notes in his decision that Saxon’s argument that all airline workers should qualify as an exception to the Act fails because of the definition and application of the word “seamen,” which only applies to those that work on ships.
In United States v. Washington, the Court then held that Washington’s compensation laws were unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. 142 S. Ct. 1976, 1982 (2022). In 2018, Washington State passed a statute that “applied only to Hanford site workers ‘engaged in the performance of work, either directly or indirectly, for the United States’” as a way to provide compensation for dealing with toxic chemicals after radiation began leaking at the government site. (iv). The federal statute in conflict with the Washington State statute is 40 U.S.C §3172. The Washington Statute conflicts with the Federal Statute because it makes it easier for Hanford workers to get access to workers’ compensation, which in turn discriminates against Federal workers not employed at this specific site. (v). Breyer notes that the Washington statute creates a “causal presumption that certain diseases and illnesses are caused by the cleanup work at Hanford” and lasts for the workers’ entire life, creating a burden on the Federal government to refute this presumption if any lawsuits arise.
Finally, in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows employers to enforce arbitration agreements for individual claims asserted under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1913 (2022). The two acts preempt employees from bringing a claim under PAGA if they individually arbitrate their dispute. Employees that are subject to individual arbitration agreements can be compelled to arbitrate any PAGA claim individually, rather than jointly. (vi). This affects the employees potential standing in court, if there were non-individual claims. Essentially, those that are subject to individual arbitration clauses cannot join class actions under PAGA. (vii).
These three cases demonstrate how a changing Supreme Court continues to shape labor and employment law.
(i) Southwest Airlines v. Saxon, 142 S. Ct. 1783, 1787 (2022).
(ii) Id. at 1789
(iii) Id. at 1791.
(iv) United States v. Washington, 142 S. Ct. 1976, 1982 (2022).
(v) Id.
(vi) Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1913 (2022).
(vii). Scott J. Witlin, Mark Wallin, Brandon Miller, and Kenneth J. Yerkes, Viking River Cruises V. Moriana: What It Means For Arbitration In California, National L. Rev, (Jun. 17, 2022), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/viking-river-cruises-v-moriana-what-it-means-arbitration-california
