737:, with Thomas also writing a concurring opinion. Gorsuch wrote that in reviewing the intent of Congress in the passage of the NLRA and FAA, that through the FAA "Congress has instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms—including terms providing for individualized proceedings." Gorsuch wrote that the Congressional intent behind the FAA was a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration", whereas the NLRA dealt more with the actions of collective bargaining, and that the "other concerted activities" language of Section 7 of the NLRA must be read with this intent and not towards dispute resolution. The opinion reversed the Circuit Court rulings in both
31:
343:
479:
626:. The Fifth Circuit ruled against the Board, stating that the FAA was not overridden by the NLRA. Despite this ruling, the Board found in favor of Hobson's case against Murphy Oil, still asserting the NLRA protected collective actions within the FAA's saving clause, and issued a formal complaint against the company. Murphy Oil challenged the Board's ruling in the Firth Circuit Court. The Board attempted seek an
573:(FAA), which they claim made any written arbitration agreements binding regardless of the NLRA. The Circuit Court rejected Epic's arguments, agreeing that the District Court's ruling on the NLRA was correct, and that the FAA had a "saving clause" which states that the FAA may be unenforceable if "such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract", referring to the NLRA language.
552:, a Wisconsin healthcare software company. In April 2014, the company notified employees to agree to a new employee policy that required them to use individual arbitration in any disputes. Employee Jacob Lewis, a technical writer, agreed to the terms as instructed. Later, in February 2015, Lewis filed a suit against the company in the
724:
The Court issued its decision on May 21, 2018. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the FAA makes individual arbitration agreements enforceable, and that neither the saving clause of the FAA or the NLRA operate to override that outcome. Justice
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion joined by Justices
420:
outside of the judicial system. The FAA includes allowances for contracts to contain provisions for compulsory and binding arbitration agreements. The language in question to the case related to the FAA's "savings clause", which stated that written arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable,
776:
The case had been of significant interest as tens of millions of
Americans are employed under contracts that require individual arbitration over collective actions. The inability for employees to take collective action had been said to potentially allow employers to be less accountable to employees,
806:
speculated that the decision will actually benefit the majority of workers because it provides a renewed incentive to put fair arbitration agreements in place. Many individual employees lack the resources to hire an attorney to pursue their case in court, and arbitration could provide a low-cost
560:
and
Wisconsin law related to overtime pay. Epic attempted to dismiss the suit, arguing that the arbitration agreement signed by Lewis prevents him from taking collective actions and requiring individual arbitration. The District Court refused to dismiss the case, arguing that Lewis' action was a
646:
during 2016, effectively asking the same questions related to the FAA and NLRA. The Court agreed to hear the cases in
January 2017, consolidating them into a single case. Observers felt that the case would favor the employers, as the Court had ruled favorably in support of arbitration in recent
694:, stating "Resolving the question presented will have a direct and immediate effect on countless employees and employers throughout the nation because individual-arbitration agreements have become so widespread." By June 2017, the Board, now operating under the Trump administration, issued its
593:, where the Court ruled that Ernst & Young's arbitration was binding and dismissed the case. The Court said in its decision, that Congress in passing the NLRA did not signify any intent to override the FAA, and ruled on the basis of the FAA's provisions. Morris and McDaniel appealed to the
460:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
768:. Ginsburg wrote that "The court today holds enforceable this arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts—including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one. ... Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees."
585:. Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel were employees of Ernst & Young and had signed employee contracts that required individual arbitration on their employment in the 2000s. Morris and McDaniel brought a class-action suit in the
1130:
613:
alleging complaints under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Murphy Oil sought the Court to dismiss the case and compel arbitration under the employment contract, and the Court agreed. Hobson filed a complaint with the
535:
The
Supreme Court case was the consolidation of three prior cases which had created a split opinion in the Circuit Courts in relation to the FAA and the NLRA, and which all had submitted petitions for writ of
597:. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court's decision, stating that the NLRA's Section 7 protects concerted activities, which was to be considered covered by the FAA's saving clause.
713:
noted that a decision favoring the employees would disrupt the status quo, asking the respondents' counsel, "So this decision in your favor would invalidate...agreements covering employees?" Justice
590:
207:
Congress has instructed in the
Federal Arbitration Act that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings must be enforced and neither saving clause of the Act nor the
609:. Sheila Hobson was an employee and had agreed to the individual arbitration agreement as part of her employment contract. In 2010, Hobson and three other employees filed suit in the
586:
553:
1184:
717:
was critical that employee contracts with arbitration agreements provided "no true bargaining" and considered that a ruling in favor of employers would create a situation similar to
610:
706:, had been confirmed in April 2017. The replacement of Justice Scalia helped retain a majority of conservative justices on the Court, which was expected to likely favor employers.
1467:
1158:
589:
on behalf of Ernst & Young employees in
California, asserting the firm had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act related to overtime pay. The case was transferred to the
630:
hearing but was denied by the Court, and the Court followed suit from the Horton case, ruling against the Board and finding the FAA was not overridden by the NLRA.
1212:
1098:
566:
1312:
690:
agency had generally favored employees and helped to defend against unfair arbitration practices. The Board continued to support employees in its petition of
1386:
668:
654:
91:
638:
The three cases above created a split decision among the circuit courts related to how the FAA and NLRA interacted. All three cases were petitioned to the
623:
594:
780:
Justice
Ginsburg's dissenting opinion stated that "Congressional correction" of the majority decision was "urgently in order" to protect employees. The
1472:
1271:
784:
also stated that
Congress should "immediately enact" legislation to override the ruling. Some reporters opined that the decision would impact how
777:
and would deter employees from taking the time, cost, and effort needed to resolve individual arbitration, effectively silencing their concerns.
1039:
1070:
830:
709:
The court heard oral arguments on October 2, 2017, which observers felt favored the employers' position. During the arguments Chief Justice
1477:
1462:
449:
and to take collective actions against employers, among other aspects, as to counter unfair employment practices that had plagued the
1432:
387:(16-307). In a 5–4 decision issued in May 2018, the Court ruled that arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration and
1457:
1008:
430:
208:
465:
This case centered on whether employee class action lawsuits fell under "other concerted activities" of NLRA's section 7.
565:
under Section 7 of the NLRA, and that the arbitration agreement in April 2014 violated those terms. Epic appealed to the
649:
639:
434:
360:
35:
1353:
887:
131:
522:
409:
504:
346:
557:
618:, who evaluated Hobson's case. During this period, the Board reviewed a similar charge against construction firm
1240:
687:
615:
489:
789:
943:
160:
562:
364:
325:
421:
and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."
1437:
1292:
Decision from the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court Rules Employee Class Action Waivers Are Enforceable
416:
was enacted in 1925, and allowed for disputes related to contractual agreements to be settled through
756:
wrote the dissenting opinion, and read parts of her opinion at the bench, and was joined by Justices
663:
496:
1397:
857:
1334:
1317:
570:
500:
405:
368:
321:
721:, which would ban employees from unionizing and for which the NLRA had been created to prevent.
1424:
1390:
1244:
672:
658:
86:
1442:
796:, since enforced individual arbitration allows employers to quietly handle such complaints.
698:
for the case supportive of the employers' position. Further, following the death of Justice
1406:
8:
1135:
1131:"Supreme Court rules that companies can require workers to accept individual arbitration"
1044:
785:
753:
718:
714:
622:; the Board issued a formal complaint against Horton, but Horton challenged this case in
556:
as a collective action by the other technical writers, asserting their failure to follow
388:
246:
1339:
1213:"Supreme Court ruling against class action lawsuits is a blow for workers — and #MeToo"
1013:
372:
75:
71:
67:
1322:
1313:"Supreme Court to Decide Whether Employers Can Prohibit Groups of Workers From Suing"
803:
799:
678:
The prospective for how the case would be resolved changed following the election of
1358:
1217:
1189:
987:
965:
909:
582:
450:
188:
171:
146:
793:
761:
730:
726:
438:
391:
are enforceable under the FAA, regardless of allowances set out within the NLRA.
266:
242:
234:
757:
699:
254:
413:
1451:
1326:
1276:
1103:
745:, remanding these back to the Circuit Court, while affirming the decision in
695:
1286:
1040:"Supreme Court Extends Class Action Waivers To Employee/Employer Contracts"
835:
734:
710:
703:
683:
679:
619:
549:
278:
258:
226:
1415:
781:
765:
446:
417:
270:
1159:"When corporations silence employees via arbitration, shareholders lose"
569:, arguing that the District Court failed to uphold the standards of the
110:
643:
606:
1071:"Supreme Court case threatens to set back workers' rights by 80 years"
947:
891:
164:
139:
98:
1099:"The Supreme Court seems to favour companies in an arbitration case"
591:
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
507:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
991:
969:
913:
442:
192:
175:
150:
587:
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
554:
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
1162:
1009:"Justices Will Hear Challenges to Mandatory Employee Arbitration"
611:
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
135:
1074:
30:
1272:"Ex-Uber Engineer Asks Supreme Court to Learn From Her Ordeal"
58:
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al.
581:(Docket 16-300) involved the multinational accounting firm
441:
was passed among several other laws and programs under the
185:
168:
143:
371:(FAA), relate to whether employment contracts can legally
1354:"Big Tech Eyes Supreme Court's Employee-Arbitration Case"
424:
1468:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
602:
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
567:
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
385:
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
807:
alternative that allows them to present their cases.
624:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
595:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1241:"Was Epic Systems Really an Epic Loss for Workers?"
605:(Docket 16-307) involved the petrochemical company
375:. The Supreme Court had consolidated three cases,
295:Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
1311:Kendall, Brent; Bravin, Jess (January 13, 2017).
1002:
1000:
359:, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case decided by the
1449:
1298:. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service
56:Ernst & Young LLP, et al. v. Morris, et al.
997:
831:"An Epic Supreme Court Decision on Employment"
682:as President of the United States, succeeding
1310:
792:, and how that would affect efforts like the
1093:
1091:
692:National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil
311:Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
788:would be handled as otherwise protected by
824:
822:
820:
399:
1473:National Labor Relations Board litigation
1124:
1122:
1088:
790:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
523:Learn how and when to remove this message
373:bar employees from collective arbitration
1269:
1064:
1062:
1037:
1284:
1156:
1068:
817:
702:, Trump's nominee for the vacant seat,
686:. During the Obama administration, the
54:Epic Systems Corporation v. Jacob Lewis
1450:
1210:
1128:
1119:
1033:
1031:
1006:
548:(Docket 16-285) involved employees at
456:Section 7 of the NLRA reads, in part:
1238:
1182:
1157:Frankel, Alison (February 13, 2018).
1069:Parloff, Roger (September 28, 2017).
1059:
445:. The NLRA enabled employees to form
433:(NLRA, also known as the Wagner Act)
18:2018 United States Supreme Court case
1351:
828:
472:
431:National Labor Relations Act of 1935
425:National Labor Relations Act of 1935
209:National Labor Relations Act of 1935
1285:Freeman, Wilson C. (May 31, 2018).
1270:Blumberg, Peter (August 24, 2017).
1038:Garlough, Jonathan (May 22, 2018).
1028:
786:sex discrimination in the workplace
650:AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
13:
1478:United States arbitration case law
1262:
1185:"The Arbitration Fight Isn't Over"
640:Supreme Court of the United States
361:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1489:
1463:United States Supreme Court cases
1393:___ (2018) is available from:
1375:
1352:Tiku, Nitasha (October 2, 2017).
1239:Adler, Johnathan (May 29, 2018).
1007:Liptak, Adam (January 13, 2017).
389:prohibiting class action lawsuits
1211:Gilman, Michele (May 22, 2018).
633:
558:Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
477:
341:
29:
1232:
1204:
1176:
1150:
1129:Barnes, Robert (May 21, 2018).
961:Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris
939:Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris
578:Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris
381:Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris
157:Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris
142:Sept. 11, 2015); affirmed, 823
1458:2018 in United States case law
1183:Hemel, Daniel (May 22, 2018).
975:
953:
931:
919:
897:
875:
862:National Labor Relations Board
858:"National Labor Relations Act"
850:
829:Epps, Garrett (May 22, 2018).
747:National Labor Relations Board
688:National Labor Relations Board
616:National Labor Relations Board
468:
167:July 09, 2013); reversed, 834
1:
810:
394:
363:on how two federal laws, the
1425:Supreme Court (slip opinion)
1335:"Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp"
983:Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB
563:protected concerted activity
365:National Labor Relations Act
326:National Labor Relations Act
182:Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB
7:
1383:Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
905:Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp.
883:Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp.
545:Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
503:the claims made and adding
356:Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
128:Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp.
24:Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
10:
1494:
1416:Oyez (oral argument audio)
944: No. 4:12-cv-04964
888: No. 3:15-cv-00082
377:Epic Systems Corp. v Lewis
1433:Justice Department briefs
771:
664:DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia
340:
335:
320:
315:
307:
299:
291:
286:
220:
215:
206:
201:
121:
116:
106:
81:
63:
49:
42:
28:
23:
347:Oral arguments on C-SPAN
1318:The Wall Street Journal
571:Federal Arbitration Act
406:Federal Arbitration Act
400:Federal Arbitration Act
369:Federal Arbitration Act
322:Federal Arbitration Act
463:
43:Argued October 2, 2017
1347:(3). January 5, 2017.
1245:The Volokh Conspiracy
988:808 F.3d 1013
910:823 F.3d 1147
894: Sept. 11, 2015).
458:
97:138 S. Ct. 1612; 200
966:834 F.3d 975
719:yellow-dog contracts
45:Decided May 21, 2018
1443:Ballotpedia summary
1136:The Washington Post
1045:National Law Review
950: Jul. 9, 2013).
928:, 823 F.3d at 1156.
754:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
715:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
661:333 (2011) and
247:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
211:suggests otherwise.
163:, 2013 WL 3460052 (
1438:SCOTUSblog summary
1340:Harvard Law Review
1014:The New York Times
488:possibly contains
231:Associate Justices
1107:. October 3, 2017
804:Samuel Estreicher
800:Jonathan H. Adler
647:cases, including
583:Ernst & Young
533:
532:
525:
490:original research
379:(Docket 16-285),
352:
351:
331:
330:
161:No. 4:12-cv-04964
132:No. 3:15-cv-00082
1485:
1429:
1423:
1420:
1414:
1411:
1405:
1402:
1396:
1370:
1368:
1366:
1348:
1330:
1307:
1305:
1303:
1297:
1281:
1256:
1255:
1253:
1251:
1236:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1225:
1208:
1202:
1201:
1199:
1197:
1180:
1174:
1173:
1171:
1169:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1143:
1126:
1117:
1116:
1114:
1112:
1095:
1086:
1085:
1083:
1081:
1066:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1052:
1035:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1021:
1004:
995:
985:
979:
973:
963:
957:
951:
941:
935:
929:
923:
917:
907:
901:
895:
885:
879:
873:
872:
870:
868:
854:
848:
847:
845:
843:
826:
675:___ (2015).
528:
521:
517:
514:
508:
505:inline citations
481:
480:
473:
451:Great Depression
345:
344:
333:
332:
216:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1448:
1447:
1427:
1421:
1418:
1412:
1409:
1403:
1400:
1394:
1378:
1373:
1364:
1362:
1333:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1265:
1263:Further reading
1260:
1259:
1249:
1247:
1237:
1233:
1223:
1221:
1209:
1205:
1195:
1193:
1181:
1177:
1167:
1165:
1155:
1151:
1141:
1139:
1127:
1120:
1110:
1108:
1097:
1096:
1089:
1079:
1077:
1067:
1060:
1050:
1048:
1036:
1029:
1019:
1017:
1005:
998:
981:
980:
976:
959:
958:
954:
937:
936:
932:
924:
920:
903:
902:
898:
881:
880:
876:
866:
864:
856:
855:
851:
841:
839:
827:
818:
813:
794:Me Too movement
774:
762:Sonia Sotomayor
731:Clarence Thomas
727:Anthony Kennedy
636:
529:
518:
512:
509:
494:
482:
478:
471:
427:
402:
397:
367:(NLRA) and the
342:
336:External videos
269:
267:Sonia Sotomayor
257:
245:
243:Clarence Thomas
235:Anthony Kennedy
102:
74:
70:
57:
55:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1491:
1481:
1480:
1475:
1470:
1465:
1460:
1446:
1445:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1398:Google Scholar
1377:
1376:External links
1374:
1372:
1371:
1349:
1331:
1308:
1282:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1231:
1203:
1175:
1149:
1118:
1087:
1058:
1027:
996:
974:
952:
930:
918:
896:
874:
849:
815:
814:
812:
809:
773:
770:
758:Stephen Breyer
700:Antonin Scalia
642:for a writ of
635:
632:
531:
530:
485:
483:
476:
470:
467:
435:29 U.S.C.
426:
423:
401:
398:
396:
393:
383:(16-300), and
350:
349:
338:
337:
329:
328:
318:
317:
313:
312:
309:
305:
304:
301:
297:
296:
293:
289:
288:
284:
283:
282:
281:
255:Stephen Breyer
232:
229:
224:
218:
217:
213:
212:
204:
203:
199:
198:
197:
196:
179:
154:
123:
119:
118:
114:
113:
108:
104:
103:
96:
83:
79:
78:
65:
61:
60:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1490:
1479:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1466:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1456:
1455:
1453:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1431:
1426:
1417:
1408:
1399:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1341:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:Bloomberg.com
1273:
1268:
1267:
1246:
1242:
1235:
1220:
1219:
1214:
1207:
1192:
1191:
1186:
1179:
1164:
1160:
1153:
1138:
1137:
1132:
1125:
1123:
1106:
1105:
1104:The Economist
1100:
1094:
1092:
1076:
1072:
1065:
1063:
1047:
1046:
1041:
1034:
1032:
1016:
1015:
1010:
1003:
1001:
993:
989:
984:
978:
971:
967:
962:
956:
949:
945:
940:
934:
927:
922:
915:
911:
906:
900:
893:
889:
884:
878:
863:
859:
853:
838:
837:
832:
825:
823:
821:
816:
808:
805:
801:
797:
795:
791:
787:
783:
778:
769:
767:
763:
759:
755:
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
722:
720:
716:
712:
707:
705:
701:
697:
696:amicus curiae
693:
689:
685:
681:
676:
674:
670:
666:
665:
660:
656:
652:
651:
645:
641:
634:Supreme Court
631:
629:
625:
621:
617:
612:
608:
604:
603:
598:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
579:
574:
572:
568:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
541:
539:
527:
524:
516:
506:
502:
498:
492:
491:
486:This section
484:
475:
474:
466:
462:
457:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
422:
419:
415:
411:
410:9 U.S.C.
407:
392:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
348:
339:
334:
327:
323:
319:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:Case opinions
285:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:Chief Justice
222:
221:
219:
214:
210:
205:
200:
194:
190:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
126:
125:
124:
120:
115:
112:
111:Oral argument
109:
105:
100:
94:
93:
88:
84:
80:
77:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1382:
1365:November 12,
1363:. Retrieved
1357:
1344:
1338:
1316:
1300:. Retrieved
1291:
1287:
1275:
1248:. Retrieved
1234:
1222:. Retrieved
1216:
1206:
1194:. Retrieved
1188:
1178:
1166:. Retrieved
1152:
1140:. Retrieved
1134:
1109:. Retrieved
1102:
1078:. Retrieved
1049:. Retrieved
1043:
1018:. Retrieved
1012:
982:
977:
960:
955:
938:
933:
925:
921:
904:
899:
882:
877:
865:. Retrieved
861:
852:
840:. Retrieved
836:The Atlantic
834:
798:
779:
775:
751:
746:
742:
739:Epic Systems
738:
735:Samuel Alito
723:
711:John Roberts
708:
704:Neil Gorsuch
691:
684:Barack Obama
680:Donald Trump
677:
662:
648:
637:
627:
620:D. R. Horton
601:
600:
599:
577:
576:
575:
550:Epic Systems
544:
543:
542:
537:
534:
519:
510:
487:
464:
459:
455:
447:trade unions
428:
403:
384:
380:
376:
355:
354:
353:
316:Laws applied
279:Neil Gorsuch
274:
262:
259:Samuel Alito
250:
238:
227:John Roberts
181:
156:
127:
117:Case history
90:
53:
15:
994: 2015).
972: 2016).
916: 2016).
766:Elena Kagan
743:Ernst Young
469:Prior cases
418:arbitration
300:Concurrence
271:Elena Kagan
64:Docket nos.
1452:Categories
1250:August 14,
811:References
644:certiorari
607:Murphy Oil
538:certiorari
497:improve it
461:protection
439:§ 157
395:Background
1327:0099-9660
948:N.D. Cal.
926:Epic Sys.
892:W.D. Wis.
725:Roberts,
540:in 2016.
513:July 2019
501:verifying
165:N.D. Cal.
140:W.D. Wis.
138:5330300 (
99:L. Ed. 2d
82:Citations
1381:Text of
1302:June 14,
992:5th Cir.
970:9th Cir.
914:7th Cir.
752:Justice
443:New Deal
414:§ 1
292:Majority
193:5th Cir.
176:9th Cir.
151:7th Cir.
107:Argument
1224:May 23,
1196:May 22,
1168:May 22,
1163:Reuters
1142:May 21,
1111:May 22,
1080:May 22,
1051:May 23,
1020:May 22,
867:May 22,
842:May 22,
782:AFL–CIO
741:and in
628:en banc
495:Please
308:Dissent
202:Holding
134:, 2015
1428:
1422:
1419:
1413:
1410:
1407:Justia
1404:
1401:
1395:
1325:
1075:Yahoo!
990: (
986:,
968: (
964:,
946: (
942:,
912: (
908:,
890: (
886:,
772:Impact
437:
412:
408:(FAA)
303:Thomas
277:
275:·
273:
265:
263:·
261:
253:
251:·
249:
241:
239:·
237:
184:, 808
76:16-307
72:16-300
68:16-285
1389:
1359:Wired
1296:(PDF)
1218:Salon
1190:Slate
671:
657:
195:2015)
178:2016)
153:2016)
122:Prior
89:___ (
1391:U.S.
1367:2017
1323:ISSN
1304:2018
1290:Epic
1252:2018
1226:2018
1198:2018
1170:2018
1144:2018
1113:2018
1082:2018
1053:2018
1022:2018
869:2018
844:2018
802:and
764:and
733:and
673:U.S.
659:U.S.
429:The
404:The
189:1013
186:F.3d
169:F.3d
147:1147
144:F.3d
92:more
87:U.S.
85:584
1387:584
1345:130
1288:An
669:577
655:563
499:by
172:975
101:889
1454::
1385:,
1356:.
1343:.
1337:.
1321:.
1315:.
1274:.
1243:.
1215:.
1187:.
1161:.
1133:.
1121:^
1101:.
1090:^
1073:.
1061:^
1042:.
1030:^
1011:.
999:^
860:.
833:.
819:^
760:,
749:.
729:,
667:,
653:,
453:.
324:,
159:,
136:WL
130:,
1369:.
1329:.
1306:.
1280:.
1254:.
1228:.
1200:.
1172:.
1146:.
1115:.
1084:.
1055:.
1024:.
871:.
846:.
526:)
520:(
515:)
511:(
493:.
191:(
174:(
149:(
95:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.