Lawyerly law stuff that's interesting


About time. Surprising given the makeup of the court, but welcome.


Agreed. It’s about damn time we started seizing Bugattis for speeding.




Neat. Organizing labor has it’s perks for the people that labor I guess.


It’s like a DDOS attack on UBER using arbitration filings.


Now Chipotle:

I hope this is a trend.


Not likely. The article is pretty clear that in the long run, in most cases, the corporations win out.


Can you post a link to an actual article which actually explains these tweets you posted? None of the tweets seem to link to anything.



Some judges are saying companies like Chipotle are using the arbitration clause in “bad faith”. But what if a different judge says the employees are “DDOS-ing” Chipotle also in bad faith? It sounds egregious but I have lost faith in judges…


It’s not as simple as pronouncing something “in bad faith”.

Employees have a right to see that their contracts are enforced, there is no way around that. Employers don’t like class action lawsuits, so they write into the contract an arbitration clause that forces employees to bring claims at the individual level. But that means that claims must be addressed at the individual level, even if there are lots of them.

In other words, if these employers successfully evaded 10000 arbitration cases, then they would open themselves up to the class action suit that they were trying to avoid in the first place.


It’s just a view from a Constitutional prospective. I don’t know that he’s written any articles about it per se.

If you look at Stevens and Heller his position makes sense.

Basically: Heller says that the First and Second Amendments are the same in that they can’t be abridged by spurious legal talk. So by that logic having “Free Speech Zones” and other stupid shit obviously can’t be Constitutional because in the layspeak of the time it would obviously be understood not to be the case.

The Constitution says : “Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But Congress has made laws that establish bullshit like Free Speech Zones and the like, which he is saying Heller and Stevens say can’t be Constitutional.


Thanks, I hadn’t heard of (or remembered) Stevens, which was making it kind of confusing.




The SCOTUS thread died to 502, so I’m putting this here since it’s law stuff.


Using fonts to fight fraud: