NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL



A MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR

The U.S. Supreme heard arguments Wednesday in New Prime v. Oliveira, one of the arbitration cases on the docket this term. As Marcia Coyle reports, the case centers on an arbitration exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The high court is considering whether the exemption applies to independent contractors and whether a court or an arbitrator should answer the question first. Next, three former clerks of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh who previously backed his nomination told Senate Judiciary committee members earlier this week that they’re “deeply troubled” by the accusations against him and that they supported an "independent and thorough” FBI investigation. Ellis Kim reports.

Check out these and other stories below.
– Lisa Helem, Editor-in-Chief, The National Law Journal

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Pro Tip from FTC Privacy Enforcer: Don't Make Life Hard for Us

By C. Ryan Barber
Some lawyers, FTC privacy attorney Jamie Hine says, “just don't make life easy. He continues: “That's just... Read More

LITIGATORS | NEWS

Another Mistrial Declared in J&J Talcum Powder Case

By Amanda Bronstad
Another jury in Los Angeles deadlocked on whether Johnson & Johnson's baby powder caused mesothelioma. Read More

CIVIL APPEALS | NEWS

The Justices Have Three Chances This Term to Bolster Arbitration

By Marcia Coyle
The three cases follow on the heels of last term's blockbuster Epic Systems v. Lewis, which said employment agreements... Read More


LITIGATORS | NEWS

3 Former Kavanaugh Clerks Want Thorough FBI Investigation

By Ellis Kim
Three former Brett Kavanaugh clerks, who previously backed their former boss' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court,... Read More


Ted Olson Is Fired Up Over ABA's Kavanaugh Letter, Drops Membership

ABA executive director Jack Rives said in response: “I’ve got the greatest respect for Ted Olson, who has been a longtime... Read More

900+ Law Profs Say Kavanaugh Lacks 'Judicial Temperament,' in Letter to Senate

The nominee's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week demonstrates that he can't be impartial on the... Read More

NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
Supreme Court Brief
POWERED BY LAW.COM
Tony Mauro
Marcia Coyle
Oct 03, 2018
As the fate of the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh appears headed to its denouement, the justices soldier on. With two days of arguments wrapped up, the court's new term is firmly launched. We take a look this morning at the justices' insatiable appetite for arbitration in a case involving a trucker and the Federal Arbitration Act's "exemption 1." Meanwhile, at a Tuesday oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts displayed his skill in finding narrow common ground in a way that may avoid a 4-4 tie in a difficult capital punishment case. Thanks for following Supreme Court Brief, where comments are welcomed at tmauro@alm.com and mcoyle@alm.com.
Parsing an Arbitration Exemption

If anyone doubts that arbitration cases continue to be a hot area of interest for the justices, take a look at this term and the last 30 years. The high court has had a steady diet of arbitration challenges with a majority of justices exhibiting a pro-arbitration bent.

This morning, the justices delve into one of three arbitration cases this term. New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira raises two questions that were issues of first impression in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and are of major significance to the transportation industry in general, and truckers in particular.

And like many arbitration fights, this one pits business and industry against workers, unions and consumer groups.

Dominic Oliveira, considered an independent contractor by New Prime, sued the company in a putative class action in Massachusetts federal district court. He alleged the company failed to pay minimum wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and also claimed breach of contract. New Prime moved to compel arbitration. Oliveira opposed the motion, arguing that his contract was exempt under the Federal Arbitration Act’s “contract of employment” exemption.

The FAA exemption applies to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

New Prime, represented by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, contends the exemption does not apply to independent contractor agreements. Oliveira’s counsel, Jennifer Bennett of Public Justicecounters that when the FAA was enacted, the ordinary meaning of “contracts of employment” included independent contractor agreements.

The justices agreed to decide whether the dispute over the application of the exemption must be resolved in arbitration, and whether the exemption applies to independent contractor agreements.

>> Lining up in support of New Prime is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, represented by Mayer Brown’s Andrew Pincus. In his amicus brief, Pincus argues that the First Circuit decision for Oliveira is “wrong under the plain text” of the exemption and under the context in which Congress enacted the FAA. He warns a decision for Oliveira would undermine “an entire industry’s reliance on the national policy favoring arbitration.

>> The libertarian Cato Institute also weighs in for New Prime. Its counsel, Andrew Grossman of Baker & Hostetler, contends that when the FAA was enacted, courts, contemporaneous state laws, dictionaries and treatises distinguished between “employees” and “independent contractors.”

>> Others supporting New Prime include Robert Hulteng of Littler Mendelsonfor the Customized Logistics and Delivery Association; Benjamin Robbins of the New England Legal Foundation and Richard Pianka of the American Trucking Association Litigation Center.

>> Oliveira’s amicus support includes Public Citizen, Massachusetts and 13 states, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Constitutional Accountability Center, American Association for Justice, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, and more. Whitehouse filed his first-ever amicus brief as counsel of record.

>> Anna Prakash of Minneapolis’s Nichols Kaster, counsel to a group of employment law scholars, tells the court that a number of statutory and regulatory regimes do not distinguish between independent contractors and employees. “Courts determine worker status under federal employment statutes by examining all relevant aspects of the working relationship,” she writes.

>> And Paul Cullen Jr. of Washington's Cullen Law Firmargues the high court’s decision will determine “whether or not owner-operators will continue to have any meaningful opportunity to protect their small businesses from the type of predatory behavior” described by Oliveira.
The Art of the Deal, John Roberts Style

The narrowing has begun.

During arguments in the capital punishment case Madison v. Alabama on Tuesday, it quickly became clear that the justices were divided—possibly by a 4-4 vote.
So Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. went to work—as he did in the 2016 term when the court also had only eight members.

Roberts distilled the conflicting arguments to find common ground, and soon was laying out a possible solution so narrow, it might apply only to one death row inmate—Vernon Madison, the man whose case was before the court, and whose severe avascular dementia has left him disabled in many ways and unable to remember his crime of killing a police officer in 1985.

Roberts started crafting the deal after both Bryan Stevenson, Madison's lawyer, and Alabama Deputy Attorney General Thomas Govan Jr. seemed to give ground. They probably knew that the current eight-member court is not in the mood for big decisions.

In a colloquy with Govan, Roberts said Stevenson had conceded that "simply not remembering the crime is not enough" to let Madison avoid the death penalty, while Govan argued that "if it's vascular dementia that affects you up to the point of Ford and Panetti, that is enough" to make Madison ineligible for execution.

"So are all we arguing about is whether Mr. Madison himself meets the Ford and Panetti standard?" Roberts asked, referring to the two relevant Supreme Court precedents that bar the execution of persons who are incompetent or have no comprehension of why they face execution.

He seemed to be telegraphing that because of Madison's severe form of dementia, it’s not necessary to craft a sweeping Eighth Amendment decision that would expand the ban to include the growing number of aging inmates with less severe dementia or memory loss.

"That's exactly right," Gavan told Roberts, and the deal seemed sealed. The outcome is still uncertain, but Roberts may have found a way out of a 4-4 tie—a tactic he may have to deploy again soon.
In Case You Missed It

>> Brett Kavanaugh could face a range of recusal issues if he's confirmed to the Supreme Court.

>> "With the replacement of Justice Kennedy with Justice Kavanaugh, you sort of have the final and perfect alignment of the party of the appointing president and the ideology of sitting justices," Kate Shaw, a professor at Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, tells Tony Mauro in this Q&A.

>> Will the Supreme Court further limit access to justice? Four cases this term could immunize corporations, Arthur H. Bryant, chairman of Public Justice, writes in this op-ed.

>> A partner at Bartlit Beck and former classmate of Kavanaugh's questioned the nominee's Yale accuser, suggesting she was "mistaken." 


A MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR



In a case before the Supreme Court, a group of firefighters contend they were terminated and replaced with younger workers in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which governs protections for workers 40 years old and older. The court was asked whether small government agencies should be exempt from the rule, just as small businesses are exempt from Title VII. And in a Q&A with professor and ABC contributor Kate Shaw and Tony Mauro, she explores the future of the Supreme Court should Kavanaugh be confirmed.
– Mark Bauer, managing editor, National Law Journal

CIVIL APPEALS | NEWS

US Justice Dept. Warns of Age Bias 'Loophole' in SCOTUS Case

By Erin Mulvaney
The justices were asked to resolve whether a small government agency should be exempt from age discrimination laws. Read More

Q&A

If Confirmed, Will Kavanaugh Take the Supreme Court 'Express Train' to the Right?

By Tony Mauro
In a conversation after the Senate hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Kate Shaw, a professor at Yeshiva... Read More

JUDICIAL ETHICS | NEWS

Kavanaugh May Face Recusal Dilemmas If He's Confirmed

By Tony Mauro
Entities that Brett Kavanaugh has attacked. Organizations that opposed Kavanaugh's nomination. Issues Kavanaugh has... Read More

LAW FIRM ASSOCIATES

Ex-Novak Druce Associate Sues Polsinelli in Standoff Over Fees

By Ryan Lovelace
Dueling lawsuits in Washington and Texas pit former associate Jose Antonio Arochi against a quartet of Polsinelli partners,... Read More

LAWYER COMPENSATION - IN-HOUSE | ANALYSIS

Labor Department Filing Reveals Big Sidley Payday in Basketball Dispute

By Brian Baxter
The firm received $3.43 million from the National Basketball Players Association last year after representing its former... Read More

ELECTION AND POLITICAL LAW | NEWS

Law Firm Partner, a Kavanaugh Classmate, Questions Yale Accuser's Claim

By C. Ryan Barber
As Brett Kavanaugh's years at Yale have come under greater scrutiny, a Bartlit Beck lawyer in Denver and former classmate... Read More




Comments