Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, 2017 could be an encroachment to the Civil Rights

As reported in The New York Times, the Bill introduced in the House of Representatives on February 9, 2017 could have an effect of ending the Class action as an American Institution. Said bill was titled as the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017.

The bill was introduced to amend the procedures used in Federal court class actions and multi-district litigation proceedings to assure fairer, more efficient outcomes for claimants and defendants, and for other purposes.

The main purpose of the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 is to (a) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members and multi-district litigation plaintiffs with legitimate claims; (b) diminish abuses in class action and mass tort litigation that are undermining the integrity of the U.S. legal system; and (c) restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by ensuring Federal court consideration of interstate controversies of national importance consistent with diversity jurisdiction principles.

However, CHRIS SAGERS and JOSHUA P. DAVIS in their article titled “Proposed Law Could Be a New Attack on Civil Rights”, pointed out that, “If Congress kills the class action, many laws protecting ordinary people will become unenforceable. Nobody would pay a lawyer to bring most individual cases under our anti-fraud, product safety, antitrust, civil rights or employment laws, for example. The individual harm is usually small, though the policy is crucial and the overall social injury may be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

It was further observed by CHRIS SAGERS and JOSHUA P. DAVIS that, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act throws in a grab bag of other new provisions, most of them with little effect but to complicate or otherwise frustrate litigation. The consequence will be to make cases unattractive to the plaintiffs’ lawyers who shoulder the huge financial risks, and for the nonprofit organizations that bring many civil rights claims, leaving many Americans with no feasible way to enforce their rights at all.

According to them, if the Bill leading to the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 becomes law, that would end class-action lawsuits would be a disservice to the working class.

Banning guns for people on secret list is a violation of due process of law

The Second US Constitutional Amendment of guarantees right to bear arms and the Fifth US Constitutional Amendment requires the due process of law before depriving people of their rights.

According to the Fifth US Constitutional Amendment, No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The very existence of secret lists (no-fly list) is abhorrent in a free society. If the government can’t make a case against you in open court, the government needs knock it off. If the government can only maintain power with the aid of such lists, it’s a government that does not deserve to exist.

No-fly list serve no honest purpose in a free society. No punishment means you can’t exclude someone from exercising a specifically-enumerated civil rights guaranteed by the constitution, because the words innocent until proven guilty although not in the Constitution are the foundation of the entire US justice system.

Hence, the No-fly list that result in denial of rights without any notice, arrest, trial, or conviction can only be viewed, legally speaking, as the exact kind of monarchial practice the Founders sought to squash—not limit—from the outset.

Thus, banning guns for those people who are in the secret list is obviously a violation of due process of law.

Walgreens to pay USD 180000 to its employee who ate a packet of chips costing $1.39

As reported by San Francisco Chronicle on July 3, 2014 Walgreens agreed the settlement deal with Josefina Hernandez, a diabetic woman employee who was terminated almost after having 18 years of service for eating a packet of chips before she paid for the chips packet.

In the above mentioned settlement deal Walgreens agreed to pay $180000 to Josefina Hernandez towards the compensation. Settlement deal was announced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Walgreens agreed to train its staff on accommodating disabled workers in addition to the payments.

Josefina Hernandez, a diabetic woman employee of Walgreens, in the year 2008, in order to stabilize her blood sugar and fend off a hypoglycemic attack grabbed a chips packet worth USD 1.39 and ate the chips. However, she made the payment after she recovered from the hypoglycemic attack.

The security officer who questioned Josefina Hernandez didn’t understood the explanation (“My sugar low. Not have time.”) provided by Josefina Hernandez that, why she ate the chips without paying for the same.