The Meaning and Contemporary Vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Section 2 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 declares it to be the public policy of the United States that employees have the right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. Section 3 denies federal courts the power to enforce “any promise or undertaking” in violation of Section 2. However, it has become rather common today for employers not only to require employees to bring virtually any legal employment claim only in an arbitration system of the employer’s devising, but to require them to waive the ability to do so as part of any class or group. The latter provision has been challenged as unenforceable under Norris-LaGuardia; but, thus far, the courts have brushed the argument – and the Act – aside. This essay deals with the provenance and meaning of sections 2 and 3. It argues that Norris-LaGuardia continues to speak to the courts today; that it does render these contractual wavers unenforceable in the federal courts.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number3
Pages (from-to)6-30
Number of pages25
JournalNebraska Law Review
Volume93
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Aptitude
Negotiating
Public Policy
Power (Psychology)

Cite this

The Meaning and Contemporary Vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. / Finkin, Matthew W.

In: Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 1, 3, 2014, p. 6-30.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{60c9ae2c5aeb444cad67d7ad00cc4068,
title = "The Meaning and Contemporary Vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act",
abstract = "Section 2 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 declares it to be the public policy of the United States that employees have the right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. Section 3 denies federal courts the power to enforce “any promise or undertaking” in violation of Section 2. However, it has become rather common today for employers not only to require employees to bring virtually any legal employment claim only in an arbitration system of the employer’s devising, but to require them to waive the ability to do so as part of any class or group. The latter provision has been challenged as unenforceable under Norris-LaGuardia; but, thus far, the courts have brushed the argument – and the Act – aside. This essay deals with the provenance and meaning of sections 2 and 3. It argues that Norris-LaGuardia continues to speak to the courts today; that it does render these contractual wavers unenforceable in the federal courts.",
author = "Finkin, {Matthew W}",
year = "2014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "93",
pages = "6--30",
journal = "Nebraska Law Review",
issn = "0047-9209",
publisher = "University of Nebraska at Lincoln",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Meaning and Contemporary Vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act

AU - Finkin, Matthew W

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Section 2 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 declares it to be the public policy of the United States that employees have the right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. Section 3 denies federal courts the power to enforce “any promise or undertaking” in violation of Section 2. However, it has become rather common today for employers not only to require employees to bring virtually any legal employment claim only in an arbitration system of the employer’s devising, but to require them to waive the ability to do so as part of any class or group. The latter provision has been challenged as unenforceable under Norris-LaGuardia; but, thus far, the courts have brushed the argument – and the Act – aside. This essay deals with the provenance and meaning of sections 2 and 3. It argues that Norris-LaGuardia continues to speak to the courts today; that it does render these contractual wavers unenforceable in the federal courts.

AB - Section 2 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 declares it to be the public policy of the United States that employees have the right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. Section 3 denies federal courts the power to enforce “any promise or undertaking” in violation of Section 2. However, it has become rather common today for employers not only to require employees to bring virtually any legal employment claim only in an arbitration system of the employer’s devising, but to require them to waive the ability to do so as part of any class or group. The latter provision has been challenged as unenforceable under Norris-LaGuardia; but, thus far, the courts have brushed the argument – and the Act – aside. This essay deals with the provenance and meaning of sections 2 and 3. It argues that Norris-LaGuardia continues to speak to the courts today; that it does render these contractual wavers unenforceable in the federal courts.

M3 - Article

VL - 93

SP - 6

EP - 30

JO - Nebraska Law Review

JF - Nebraska Law Review

SN - 0047-9209

IS - 1

M1 - 3

ER -