I didn’t plan our launch 这个 way at all. Originally, I planned to talk about how today is the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of 第七题. I wanted to write about how incredibly important 第七题 has been to 这个 country. I wanted to write about what it meant to have laws on the books that said we, women, were entitled to the protection of our federal government when we were at work. I wanted to write about how generations of women (my own included) have been able to imagine 和 craft lives for themselves that would have been unthinkable fifty years earlier. This is true because 第七题 opened the doors to the justice system to working women. I envisioned an uplifting piece that, while acknowledging how far we have yet to go, really celebrated how far we have come.
但是，有些事情不容易左右左右，任何关注的人都应该关心。最重要的是，最高法院的裁决 爱好大厅 is part of a larger trend. When given a chance, the Supreme Court will protect employers (especially large corporations) at the expense of the hard-working Americans who are that corporation’s employees. 的re are too many decisions in the last few years that illustrate 这个 point for me to review all of them. When read all together, though, it is quite clear that the Supreme Court is committed to doing 一切 它可以为寻求正义的员工关闭法庭的大门。
首先，在2011年4月27日， ATT Mobility诉Concepcion. Five of the nine justices ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act should be applied broadly. This sounds boring, but what it means in real life is that employers are able to require employees give up their rights to actually go to court when they believe their employer has broken the law. Instead, employers can force employees to go into a secret process where instead of a judge or a jury, there is a decision-maker who is paid 通过 the very same employer that the worker is trying to sue. I am not kidding. You just read that correctly. Later cases have expanded 这个 rule to also say that employers can also require employees entirely give up their right to join with other employees in a class action when in forced arbitration.
仅仅几个月后， 沃尔玛诉杜克. On June 20, 2011, that same group of five justices issued a ruling that made it significantly more difficult for employees to band together when trying to hold corporations accountable for breaking our nation’s antidiscrimination 和 labor laws—even when they are able to avoid forced arbitration 和 proceed in courts. 的 practical effect of the 沃尔玛 裁定员工面临大卫和巨人的情况，在许多情况下，美国人别无选择，只能自己与大型的国家或跨国公司（拥有数十亿美元的资源）竞争。这不是成功的基础。
在随后的几年中，写下这些观点的五个人也做出了其他决定， 更轻松 和 更轻松 for employers to push even the most meritorious of cases out of court. In order to protect corporations in 这个 way, the five men on the Supreme Court issuing these decisions – Chief Justice John Roberts 和 Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy 和 Samuel Alito – were forced to rely on increasingly absurd misstatements of the evidence in the cases 和 increasingly bizarre contortions of the law. For a good sense of how crazy 这个 five-man majority has been in issuing these pro-employer decisions, just read some of the inspiring 和 严厉反对 金斯堡大法官写的
这使我们回到 爱好大厅。再次，金斯堡法官摇摆着篱笆，创作了 热情和该死的 否决了五人多数制，决定与其雇主并肩作战以损害其雇员的利益。的 爱好大厅 意见应得到的。它是荒谬的。它说，公司可以通过对宗教自由进行保护而不受联邦法律的约束。最初旨在保护小人物和大人物（强势政府）利益的保护措施。
Employees of America, if the Supreme Court is allowed to have its way, it would leave us all as unprotected every day in the workplace as it has now left working women who are too poor to be able to afford contraception on their own. And make no mistake about who bears the brunt of being unprotected. It is the women, the people of color, the disabled 和 the old.