The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, April 20, 2018. The Supreme Court says employers can prohibit their workers from banding together to complain about pay and conditions in the workplace. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) J. Scott Applewhite

Supreme Court rules that companies can require workers to accept individual arbitration

An ideologically divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that companies may require workers to settle employment disputes through individual arbitration rather than joining to press their complaints, a decision affecting as many as 25 million workers.

The court’s conservative majority said that the 5-4 ruling was a logical reading of federal law and Congress’s preference for using arbitration to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.

But the decision, involving a wage dispute, was roundly criticized on the left, and advocates said it could make it harder to press other workplace complaints such as discrimination and sexual harassment.

“Employees may now be forced behind closed doors into an individual, costly – and often secret – arbitration process,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center. “This will stack the deck in favor of the employer.”

The decision also underscored the importance of the 2016 presidential election on the judiciary. The Obama administration and the National Labor Relations Board had backed workers in the cases, but after President Donald Trump was elected, the Justice Department threw its support to the employers.

And the ruling was written by Trump’s nominee to the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is far more likely that the 5-4 decision would have gone the other way if President Barack Obama’s nominee to the court, Judge Merrick Garland, had been confirmed.

The decision came in what is considered the most important business case of the term. It expands upon recent Supreme Court decisions that permit corporations to avoid class-action lawsuits from consumers by enforcing contracts that call for individual arbitration.

Gorsuch, writing for the conservative majority, outlined the question presented by this case: Should employers be allowed to insist that workplace disputes be handled in one-on-one arbitration, or should employees always have an option of bringing claims in collective actions?

“As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable,” Gorsuch wrote. “But as a matter of law the answer is clear. In the Federal Arbitration Act, Congress has instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms – including terms providing for individualized proceedings.”

Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Workers had contended that another federal law, the National Labor Relations Act, makes illegal any contract that denies employees the right to engage in “concerted activities” for the purpose of “mutual aid and protection.” That means that some sort of collective action cannot be prohibited, the workers say.

That was the thrust of a forceful dissent from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who called the decision “egregiously wrong” and underlined her objections by reading part of her dissent from the bench.

“The court today holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts – including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one,” she said. “Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees.”

Trying to arbitrate such claims individually would be too expensive to be worth it, she wrote, and “the risks of employer retaliation would likely dissuade most workers from seeking redress alone.”

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The cases involve non-unionized workers, but labor leaders said it was representative of how the court sides with business over workers.

“Five justices on the Supreme Court decided that it is acceptable for working people to have our legal rights taken away by corporations in order to keep our jobs,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.

Unions are bracing for another Supreme Court case yet to be decided, which could forbid public employee unions from collecting fees from nonmembers to cover the cost of contract negotiations.

Arbitration contracts are a growing trend. Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that only 2.1 percent of non-ununionized companies imposed mandatory arbitration agreements on their employees in 1992, but nearly 54 percent do now.

She took exception to Gorsuch’s description that workers had “agreed” to abide by one-to-one arbitration.

One of the companies, Epic Systems Corp., emailed its employees the arbitration agreement and said that if they continued to work at the company, they would be “deemed” as having accepted the terms.

Hours after the decision, one law firm, Ogletree Deakins, announced an “automated tool that quickly prepares custom arbitration agreements with class action waivers based on employers’ requirements and preferences.”

But Gregory Jacob, a Washington lawyer who previously served in the Labor Department, said the business community was not waiting on a go-ahead from the Supreme Court.

“Most employers expected this decision, and did not hesitate where desired to insert individualized arbitration provisions into employment agreements,” he said in a statement. “This decision thus will not see a huge increase in the use of such provisions, but it does protect employers’ settled expectations and avoids placing our nation’s job providers under the threat of additional burdensome litigation drain.”

The decision was one of the most impactful of Gorsuch’s fledgling career on the court. Gorsuch, 50, engaged in a point-by-point debate with Ginsburg, 85, who wore the collar she has said she favors when delivering a meaningful dissent.

“As I see it, in relatively recent years, the court’s Arbitration Act decisions have taken many wrong turns,” Ginsburg wrote. “Yet, even accepting the court’s decisions as they are, nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today.”

Suits to enforce workplace rights collectively “fit comfortably” under the National Labor Relations Act promises, she said.

Without them, the “inevitable result” of the decision “will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers,” she wrote.

Gorsuch said Ginsburg’s dissent “even suggests we have resurrected the long-dead ‘yellow dog’ contract,” in which employers attempted to forbid employees from joining unions.

“But like most apocalyptic warning, this one proves a false alarm,” Gorsuch wrote.

Ginsburg’s objections are to policy, he said, but those are not decisions for judges to make but the policymakers in the political branches where those questions remain hotly contested,” Gorsuch said.

While the decision was largely supported by the business community, some Democrats in Congress said the ruling was a call for action.

The combined cases are EPIC Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young v. Morris and NLRB v. Murphy Oil.</s>A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use individual arbitration instead of class-action lawsuits to press legal claims. The decision potentially limits the rights of tens of millions of employees.

The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, said for the first time Monday, May 21, that a 1925 federal law lets employers enforce arbitration agreements signed by workers, even if they bar group claims. The majority rejected contentions that a separate law guarantees workers the right to join forces in pressing claims.

The ruling builds on previous Supreme Court decisions that let companies channel disputes with consumers and other businesses into arbitration. The latest decision applies directly to wage-and-hour claims, and its reasoning might let employers avoid class action job-discrimination suits as well.

"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

Arbitration supporters say that forum is cheaper and more efficient than traditional litigation. Critics say companies are trying to strip individuals of important rights, including the ability to band together on claims that as a practical matter are too small to press individually.

"The inevitable result of today's decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers," Ginsburg wrote.

Ginsburg called on Congress to pass legislation to override the court's decision. Ginsburg successfully issued a similar call a decade ago, urging Congress to bolster the rights of women to press equal-pay lawsuits.</s>Justice Ruth Ginsburg penned her objections to the 'egregiously wrong' decision.

In what’s being viewed as a blow to workers’ rights that has implications to sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits brought by employees, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that employers can require workers to waive their right to participate in class action lawsuits as a condition of employment. Voting was close with the decision passing 5-4. Justice Neil Gorsuch and the other four conservative justices voted in favor of the decision. The case had been under consideration since October, making it the longest-pending case before the justices, according to USA Today.

The goal set forth for the Supreme Court was to reconcile two decisions that seemed to contradict each other. New Deal labor laws gave workers explicit rights to pull together while the Federal Arbitration Act encouraged arbitration instead of lawsuits.

Three cases were heard and served as the basis for Monday’s ruling by the Supreme Court. All of those cases involve pay issues, but critics of the decision believe it will hurt employees who want to bring action against their employers for discrimination or sexual harassment. Management attorneys say it will protect employers from costly litigation that stretches across long periods of time. The ruling is consistent with the court’s historic tendency to favor arbitration over lawsuits. Justice Gorsuch wrote the decision which stated in part, “As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable. But as a matter of law, the answer is clear.”

Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote of the belief of herself and the other three dissenting judges that the decision is “egregiously wrong.” She warned that it would likely lead to a lack of enforcement of both federal and state laws intended to “advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.” The Chicago Tribune reports that she also expressed a concern that employees may be discouraged from raising issues in the workplace because monetary awards given as a result of individual arbitration often is not enough to cover the employee’s cost of going to arbitration. Many employees sign agreements to forfeit their right to class action lawsuits without giving it much thought because it is often a condition of employment. Because of this, Justice Ginsburg also commented that the agreements in themselves give employers too much power and are in reality “arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts.” Also in her written statement was this.

The Supreme Court is also considering a case related to the ability of public employee unions to collect dues from non-members in 24 states. That decision is expected to be against the unions with the same 5-4 split as Monday’s workers’ rights decision.</s>For a variety of workers, the class action lawsuit has been a powerful tool against employer abuse, but in a new Supreme Court decision, the court’s conservatives have given companies the right to ban potential employees from joining class action lawsuits as a condition of employment.

The 5-4 ruling, based on three cases, was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointee. As reports, Gorsuch wrote “that the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act trumps the National Labor Relations Act and that employees who sign employment agreements to arbitrate claims must do so on an individual basis—and may not band together to enforce claims of wage and hour violations.”

In other words, instead of harnessing their collective power, employees who have signed such contracts can’t join a class action lawsuit and instead must seek recourse individually, through arbitration.

The decision strengthens employers’ arguments that forced arbitration clauses don’t violate labor laws. As Gorsuch wrote, “This court is not free to substitute its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the people’s representatives.”

As points out, “Studies have shown that workers win far less often in mandatory arbitration than in court.” Compounding the problem for employees, “since most arbitration is conducted in secret, mandatory arbitration has helped businesses avoid unfavorable publicity that might compel them to address chronic worker abuses.”

The three cases were brought against Ernst & Young LLP, Epic Systems Corp. and Murphy Oil USA Inc. All three companies required employees to sign contracts with forced arbitration clauses. The employees in question had tried to join together, saying that any money they’d win in individual cases would be cancelled out by massive legal fees required to try these cases individually.

In her dissent, read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that the ruling will lead to “underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.”

She also encouraged Congress to step in and update federal labor laws.

Truthdig is running a reader-funded project to document the Poor People’s Campaign. Please help us by making a donation.</s>A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use individual arbitration instead of class-action lawsuits to press legal claims. The decision potentially limits the rights of tens of millions of employees.

The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, said for the first time Monday that employers can enforce arbitration agreements signed by workers, even if those accords bar group claims. The majority rejected contentions that federal labor law guarantees workers the right to join forces in pressing claims.

The ruling builds on previous Supreme Court decisions that let companies channel disputes with consumers and other businesses into arbitration. The latest decision applies directly to workers’ wage-and-hour claims, and its reasoning might let employers avoid class action job-discrimination lawsuits as well.

"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

Arbitration supporters say that forum is less costly and more efficient than traditional litigation. Critics say companies are trying to strip individuals of important rights, including the ability to band together on claims that as a practical matter are too small to press individually.

"The inevitable result of today’s decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers," Ginsburg wrote.

The workers in the case said the National Labor Relations Act guarantees them the right to press claims as a group, either in arbitration or in court. The 1935 law protects "concerted activities" by workers, without explicitly mentioning lawsuits.

The majority said that language wasn’t specific enough to overcome a separate 1925 law that says arbitration agreements must be enforced like any other contract.

About 25 million employees have signed arbitration accords that bar group claims, a lawyer for the workers in the case told the court.</s>In a victory for employers and the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday said that employers could block employees from banding together as a class to fight legal disputes in employment arbitration agreements.

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, his first major opinion since joining the court last spring and a demonstration of how the Senate Republicans’ move to keep liberal nominee Merrick Garland from being confirmed in 2016 has helped cement a conservative court.

“This is the Justice Gorsuch that I think most everyone expected,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. “Not only is he endorsing the conservative justices’ controversial approach to arbitration clauses, but he’s taking it an important step further by extending that reasoning to employment agreements, as well.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench, calling the majority opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis “egregiously wrong.”

“The court today holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts — including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one. Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees,” she said.

In the majority opinion, Gorsuch maintained the “decision does nothing to override” what Congress has done.

“Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written,” he said.

As the dissent recognizes, the legislative policy embodied in the (National Labor Relations Act) is aimed at ‘safeguard[ing], first and foremost, workers’ rights to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining,” he wrote. “Those rights stand every bit as strong today as they did yesterday.”

Gorusch, responding to Ginsburg’s claim that the court’s decision would resurrect so-called “yellow dog” contracts which barred an employee from joining a union, said that “like most apocalyptic warnings, this one proves a false alarm.”

The case was the biggest business case of the term, and represented a clash between employers who prefer to handle disputes through arbitration against employees who want to be able to band together to bring their challenges and not be required to sign class action bans.

It also pitted two federal laws against each other.

One, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), gives employees the right to self organization to “engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection” the other, the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows employers to “settle by arbitration.”

Lawyers for employers, who have long backed arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, argued that class action waivers are permissible under the 1925 law. They say the NLRA does not contain a congressional command precluding enforcement of the waivers.

The Trump administration supported the employers in the case, a switch from the Obama administration’s position.

“Today’s ruling is a major blow for the rights of employees, who almost never have enough of an interest, by themselves, to take the time and resources to litigate claims against their employers — especially claims concerning underpayment of wages,” Vladeck said.

The court has approved some collective action bans in consumer contracts, and employers hoped for the same fate when it comes to employer contracts.

One of the three consolidated cases before the court concerned a grievance claim brought by an employee of a healthcare software company called Epic Systems Corporation. The employee, Jacob Lewis, sought to sue Epic in federal court on behalf of a group of employees who claimed the company had denied them overtime pay. Epic sought to dismiss the complaint arguing that Lewis had waived his right to pursue joint legal claims.

Neal Katyal, a lawyer for Epic, argued in court papers,” like other contracts, employment contracts may require that arbitration be conducted on an individual basis.” Lawyers for the employees, on the other hand, said the NLRA precludes such waivers.

Workers don’t like the waivers because it’s much more expensive — and at times intimidating — to bring individual claims.

The employees have the support of the National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal agency that protects the rights of private sector employees to join together to improve working conditions.

At oral arguments, the justices seemed closely divided along ideological lines. Justice Stephen Breyer worried that if the employers were to prevail they would be “overturning labor law that goes back to, for FDR at least, the entire heart of the New Deal.”

At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Ortiz, a lawyer for the workers, whether a decision in his favor would “invalidate agreements covering 25 million employees”

Ortiz said it would.</s>The Supreme Court ruled Monday that businesses can force employees to resolve disputes outside the court system, blocking potential class-action lawsuits in a victory for business interests.

The case challenged provisions in employee contracts called arbitration agreements in which employees agree that if there is a dispute between them and an employer they will resolve it without filing a lawsuit.

The court voted 5-4 that those agreements are legal, with the more liberal justices signing on to the dissent, saying that the decision will likely lead to less enforcement of minimum wage or anti-discrimination laws.

ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said that at issue in this case were claims about overtime pay that were often too small to be worth pursuing alone but are more likely to be successful if they're brought as class action cases. The employers, on the other hand, sought to enforce provisions of employee contracts that require individual arbitration and bar workers from filing class-action lawsuits.

"In essence, there are two main statutes here: the Federal Arbitration Act, or FAA, and the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA," Shaw said. "The Court had to decide how they worked together - the FAA is designed to protect arbitration as an alternative to litigation, and the NLRA is designed to protect workers. Here the five-justice conservative majority essentially decided that the FAA controlled – that it allowed employers to include in their employment agreements language that required individual arbitration and prohibited collective action, regardless of the NLRA."

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the decision that the law as written says that arbitration agreements are legal and must be enforced.

"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written."

Gorsuch wrote that the employees challenging arbitration agreements did not prove that the agreements violated federal law.

"They object to their agreements precisely because they require individualized arbitration proceedings instead of class or collective ones," they said in the decision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote in dissent that the court's decision was "egregiously wrong," writing that extreme imbalance was once prevalent in the workplace and that federal law like the National Labor Relations Act was meant to place employers and employees on a more equal footing.

"The inevitable result of today's decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers, Ginsberg said.

She wrote that the decision that employees who want to dispute their wages with their employer have to use arbitration does not come from federal law but is the result "take-it-or-leave-it" labor contracts similar to those that block employees from joining a union and that suppress the right of workers to take legal action.

Shaw said it's unclear how the decision would affect disputes related to issues like sexual harassment, which have garnered more attention since the #MeToo movement.</s>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the rights of workers on Monday by allowing companies to require them to sign away their ability to bring class-action claims against management, agreements already in place for about 25 million employees.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling with the court’s conservatives in the majority, endorsed the legality of the growing practice by companies to compel workers to sign arbitration agreements waiving their right to bring class-action claims on issues such as overtime wages or gender-based pay disparities either in court or before private arbitrators.

President Donald Trump’s administration last year reversed the government’s stance in the case, siding with the companies after former President Barack Obama’s administration had supported a U.S. National Labor Relations Board decision invalidating such employment agreements.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s appointee to the court, wrote the ruling, saying federal arbitration law takes precedence over the National Labor Relations Act.

“The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written,” Gorsuch wrote.

Writing on behalf of the four liberal justices in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the ruling was “egregiously wrong” and called for Congress to take action to protect workers’ rights.

“The court today holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave it contracts — including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wages and hours claims only one-by-one. Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees,” Ginsburg said in a statement she read in court.

The ruling came in the biggest business case of the court’s current term, which began in October runs through the end of June.

Growing numbers of employers have mandated that their employees sign waivers to guard against a rising tide of worker lawsuits on wage issues. Class-action litigation can result in large damages awards by juries and is harder for businesses to fight than cases brought by individual plaintiffs.

The NLRB argued that the waivers violate federal labor law and let companies evade their responsibilities under workplace statutes. Workers have fought back against the waivers, arguing that the cost of pursuing their cases individually in arbitration is prohibitively expensive.

About one in four private-sector non-union employees have signed arbitration agreements that include class-action waivers, according to the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute. Workers have fought back against the waivers, arguing that the cost of pursuing their cases individually in arbitration is prohibitively expensive.

Lawyers representing businesses have said that resolving workplace disputes through arbitration with individual employees is a speedy and cost-effective alternative to class-action litigation.

The three consolidated cases that came before the court involved professional services firm Ernst & Young LLP[ERNY.UL], gas station operator Murphy Oil USA Inc[MOUI.UL] and healthcare software company Epic Systems Corporation.</s>A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use individual arbitration instead of class-action lawsuits to press legal claims. The decision potentially limits the rights of tens of millions of employees.

The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, said for the first time Monday that a 1925 federal law lets employers enforce arbitration agreements signed by workers, even if they bar group claims. The majority rejected contentions that a separate law guarantees workers the right to join forces in pressing claims.

The ruling builds on previous Supreme Court decisions that let companies channel disputes with consumers and other businesses into arbitration. The latest decision applies directly to wage-and-hour claims, and its reasoning might let employers avoid class action job-discrimination suits as well.

"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

Arbitration supporters say that forum is cheaper and more efficient than traditional litigation. Critics say companies are trying to strip individuals of important rights, including the ability to band together on claims that as a practical matter are too small to press individually.

"The inevitable result of today’s decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers," Ginsburg wrote.

Ginsburg called on Congress to pass legislation to override the court’s decision. Ginsburg successfully issued a similar call a decade ago, urging Congress to bolster the rights of women to press equal-pay lawsuits.

The ruling shows the impact of the 14-month battle over the seat left vacant when Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in 2016. President Donald Trump filled the opening with Gorsuch last year after Senate Republicans blocked a vote in 2016 on then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito -- all Republican appointees and members of the court’s conservative wing -- joined Gorsuch in the majority.

About 25 million employees have signed arbitration accords that bar group claims, a lawyer for the workers in the case told the court.

The workers said the National Labor Relations Act guarantees them the right to press claims as a group, either in arbitration or in court. The 1935 law protects "concerted activities" by workers, without explicitly mentioning lawsuits.

The majority said that language wasn’t specific enough to overcome a separate law, the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act, which says arbitration agreements must be enforced like any other contract.

That provision "focuses on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively," Gorsuch wrote. "It may permit unions to bargain to prohibit arbitration. But it does not express approval or disapproval of arbitration. It does not mention class or collective action procedures. It does not even hint at a wish to displace the Arbitration Act."

Ginsburg sought to limit the impact of the ruling, saying its logic shouldn’t prevent workers from banding together to press broad discrimination claims under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

"It would be grossly exorbitant to read the FAA to devastate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws enacted to eliminate, root and branch, class-based employment discrimination," she wrote.

The high court ruling is a victory for three companies involved in the fight. The group includes the accounting firm Ernst & Young LLP, which was fighting allegations that it misclassified thousands of employees to make them ineligible for overtime pay.

The court was also considering an appeal from Epic Systems Corp., a health-care software company that was sued by Jacob Lewis, an employee who says the company misclassified him and other technical writers so that they wouldn’t be eligible for overtime pay.

The third case involved a Murphy USA unit fighting allegations that it underpaid four employees at its gas station in Calera, Ala. The National Labor Relations Board had concluded the company engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to let the workers pursue their claims together.

Although the Trump administration backed the employers, the National Labor Relations Board took the side of the workers during arguments in October. At the time, the board’s general counsel was a Democratic appointee.

The ruling drew cheers from business advocates, who said it will reduce costly litigation.

"Today’s decision is a victory for everyone but lawyers," said Andrew Pincus, a Washington lawyer who filed a brief for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Employees and businesses will continue to have access to a quick, less expensive, and fair system for resolving claims."

Some civil rights advocates suggested the ruling will undermine class action discrimination lawsuits, even though the court didn’t directly address that issue.

“The Supreme Court has taken away a powerful tool for women to fight discrimination at work," said Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center. "Instead of banding together with coworkers to push back against sexual harassment, pay discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, racial discrimination, wage theft and more, employees may now be forced behind closed doors into an individual, costly -- and often secret -- arbitration process."

Still, the impact on civil rights claims is likely to be a subject of future court fights. Raymond Audain, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that "we agree with Justice Ginsburg that the decision does not apply to discrimination claims."

The cases are Epic Systems v. Lewis, 16-285; Ernst & Young v. Morris, 16-300; and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, 16-307.</s>The Supreme Court stands before decisions are released for the term in Washington Thomson Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the rights of workers on Monday by allowing companies to require them to sign away their ability to bring class-action claims against management, agreements already in place for about 25 million employees.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling with the court's conservatives in the majority, endorsed the legality of the growing practice by companies to compel workers to sign arbitration agreements waiving their right to bring class-action claims on issues such as overtime wages or gender-based pay disparities either in court or before private arbitrators.
The U.S. Supreme Court votes 5–4 to allow companies to enforce contracts which bar employees from entering class action lawsuits.