Anti-Consumer Decisions From Supreme Court Get Congressional Scrutiny

At a recent Senate hearing , several lawmakers blasted the U.S. Supreme Court over a series of opinions they say protect businesses at the expense of ordinary Americans. Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, said the Court’s recent opinions on employment discrimination, federal preemption and mandatory arbitration have empowered and protected corporations while making it harder for workers and consumers to get redress.
Leahy pointed to Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S.Ct. 2162, handed down just over a year ago. In that case, the Court ruled against a disparate pay plaintiff who said she was unaware of her employer’s discriminatory practices and contended the statute of limitations should be restarted with the issuance of each unequal paycheck.
The Court disagreed, ruling in favor of the employer. This prompted a bid by Congress to overturn the decision with legislation. The bill died earlier this term.
He also blasted two other recent decisions: Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc., No. 06-43, and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, No. 07-219.
In the Stoneridge case, the Court held that defrauded stockholders had not shown the reliance necessary to bring an action against third-party actors under the Securities Exchange Act. In the Exxon decision, the justices cut a punitive damages award to Alaskan fishermen whose businesses had suffered after the 1989 Valdez oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million.
In testimony that was emotional at times, Osa M. Schultz, a Cordova, Alaska, resident and plaintiff in the Exxon case, said the Court’s decision to impose a 1-to-1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages fell drastically short of making Alaskan fishermen whole.
Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet, a former arbitrator for the National Arbitration Forum, spoke on the issue of mandatory arbitration. She said her experience at arbitration hearings between credit card companies and consumers showed her the deck is stacked against debtors. She asserted she was dismissed as an arbitrator by the NAF after she ruled in favor of a consumer and ordered a credit card company to pay damages.