Scottrade News

Ten years ago, in AT&T v. Concepcion, The Supreme Court ruled Federal Arbitration Law The court is required to place the arbitration agreement “on the same level as other contracts.” Concepcion Involving state laws that are detrimental to the arbitration clause.On Monday, the court agreed to hear a lawsuit by a fast food restaurant employee who accused the lower court of handling an arbitration clause and also favorable.

Decided to accept the case, Morgan v. Sundance, Came in Order From the private meeting of the justices on November 12. This is the only new case approved by the Justice for review. It started with a lawsuit filed by Robin Morgan, an employee of Taco Bell, Iowa, against Sundance, who owns more than 150 Taco Bell franchises across the country. After Morgan filed a potential class action lawsuit against Sundance, claiming that she and other employees were not paid for all working hours, Sundance finally asked Morgan to arbitrate her claim. The District Court found that Sundance had waived the right to request arbitration because it waited too long and concluded that Morgan was hurt by the time and money she spent in the lawsuit, rather than preparing for arbitration.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ReverseIt ruled that even though Sundance should insist on arbitration sooner, Morgan did not show that she was harmed by the delay. Morgan went to the Supreme Court in August and asked the judge to weigh whether she needed to show prejudice to prove Sundance gave up her arbitration rights, especially when she did not need to perform this kind of performance for another contract.

The judges asked the U.S. Attorney General to submit a briefing to express the federal government’s views in two cases involving whether federal laws supersede California’s laws governing workers.exist Virgin America v. Bernstein, The federal government will weigh whether the Airline Deregulation Act outweighs mandatory state law violations against crew members. The problem is California Freight Association v. Bonta Is the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill prohibiting California and other states from adopting rules restricting the use of independent contractors by freight companies.

Also on Monday, the judges refused to review the two cases. What are the origins of these cases? wealth Call “One of the most expensive business scandals ever”: Volkswagen used software on its 11 million cars to cheat in emission tests. Volkswagen settled criminal and civil claims filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for more than $20 billion, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Ohio Supreme Court allowed claims based on tampering with the emission control system after the car was sold. Go straight.

The Ninth Circuit admitted that its holdings could “cause Volkswagen to assume unexpected (and huge) liability. But this result,” the Court of Appeals concluded, “is caused by the unusual and unprecedented circumstances before us.” The panel recommended, When drafting the Clean Air Act, Congress “obviously did not consider that manufacturers would deliberately tamper with the emission control systems of their vehicles after sales to improve the functionality of equipment designed to deceive regulators.” The Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen’s request. The court’s request to retry the case.

Volkswagen came to the Supreme Court earlier this year and asked the judge to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The judges first sought the opinion of the federal government, and the federal government urged the judges to dismiss the case, and the judges on Monday did the same-for these two cases, Volkswagen Group v. Hillsboro County Environmental Protection Commission with Volkswagen AG v. Volkswagen, Ohio, former rel.Jost.

The judges will meet again on Friday, November 19.

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.