I want to add the following. I'm an IT professional. In the course of my professional duties, I'm expected to…
Morning Headlines 5/22/18
Epic Systems gets a win in U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting workers’ ability to sue employers
After reviewing the employee arbitration cases of Epic and two other companies, the US Supreme Court declares that companies do have a right to mandate that employees sign agreements preventing them from taking workplace grievances to courts of law.
Iora Health Raises $100 Million in Series E Financing
Primary care company Iora Health raises $100 million, which it plans to use to further develop its proprietary care coordination technology.
Janus Henderson Reports 11.9 Percent Stake In athenahealth
Janus Henderson Group, Athenahealth’s largest shareholder, urges the company to initiate a formal sale process.
Theresa May: Artificial intelligence will prevent 22,000 cancer deaths a year by 2033
British Prime Minister Theresa May outlines the government’s industrial strategy, which includes significant investments in healthcare-focused AI and analytics to help catch cancer diagnoses earlier.
EPIC SYSTEMS CORP. v. LEWIS
Beyond ironic that the name of a liberal company from a famously liberal city in the mid-west will now be forever linked to a decision that has dealt a blow to progressive labor laws.
Of course, it has been no secret that while a good chunk of Epic is liberal leaning, and while Epic, like other EHR vendors, has benefitted from government’s largesse (nothing wrong there), like a good old capitalist organization, it has often chafed at any sort of government regulations of its business or labor practices.
That they managed to co-opt Jim Doyle in their swamp (see his statement in the linked article) and that it wasn’t too long ago when they had managed to get Paul Ryan write a letter of support for them goes to show that board seat, token compensation, campaign support etc. goes a long way to help politicians forget their principles.
If you read the majority and dissenting opinions this is clearly the correct decision from a legal standpoint unless you’re advocating for judicial activism, which I would hope no one is.To be clear, I think this is a bad thing, and gives too much power to corporations, but from a purely legal standpoint as the laws are written this interpretation is correct.
“unless you’re advocating for judicial activism, which I would hope no one is.” is a pretty clear indicator that you’re offering a biased interpretation of the case. The implication that a justice may never interpret the intention and context of a law, as opposed to only its words is ridiculous.
Also, I’m not sure how you read the words “engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” and decide that class actions over unfair labor practices are entirely different kinds of activities. Class actions may not have been listed as one of those activities, but if “freedom of speech” and “unreasonable search and seizure” as written in 1789 can apply to conversations on the phone, then “concerted activities for the purpose of … other mutual aid” as written in 1935 can apply to class actions.