SCOTUS Rules Against Norfolk Southern In Rebuke To Corporate Impunity

In a huge win for workers rights and protections, the Supreme Court actually ruled against rail company Norfolk Southern and ended up siding with one of their former employees. Now the case centered on where, and where employees can file lawsuits against these companies. And this particular employee did file a lawsuit against Norfolk Southern in Pennsylvania specifically. So in a five to decision, Scotus ruled, yeah, he can

file that lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Now let's understand what's actually transpiring here. Now this story all started back in 2017. When a former Norfolk Southern employee by the name of Robert Mallory was diagnosed with colon cancer. Now Mallory filed a lawsuit against the company alleging that his illness stemmed from workplace exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials. He also claimed that the company really failed to provide

safety equipment and other resources to keep workers safe. And given the derailing of Norfolk Southern trains, given the cost-cutting efforts that they've taken in recent years, which has made operating these trains less safe, I would not be surprised if we found that the employees accusations had merit. But nonetheless, although he had never worked in the state of Pennsylvania, Mallory decided to file his lawsuit there. Although

Southern owns thousands of miles of track in the Kesson State, the Philadelphia County Court sided with the railroad and dismissed the case. So that was the, it ended up getting ruled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They decided to side with Norfolk Southern, but the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case upon appeal. And luckily decided to rule in favor of Mallory, the employee here.

Now let's talk about what the outcome was and what the reasoning was by these justices. The High Court ruled that Pennsylvania's consent by registration law requiring an out of state firm to answer in the Commonwealth any suits against it in exchange for statuses a registered foreign corporation. And the benefits that entails does not violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment. John, what are your

thoughts? Yeah, so we often like to remind the audience of where our expertise ends. And obviously, I am not a lawyer, although I am wearing a tie right now. So I can understand why you would be a big hit. I mean, you're already qualified to ask me. I will. Lawyer ask, but I'm not actually, I didn't do it. And I say that because I am sure

that I am wrong. And there are very good reasons why they set it up the way it did. And I like the outcome. But I am. I'm not sure. If he didn't work in the state, then theoretically he can sue in any state where they operate. Shouldn't he have to work in a state where the crime happened to him? It depends on the state's regulations. Right.

So in Pennsylvania, in order for businesses to operate there, they have to agree to allow lawsuits to be filed against them in those states. Yeah, and that's okay. Some Pennsylvania. I totally buy that. I'm just saying, I'm not going to say that I'm not going to do anything else. I'm saying, does that make common sense? I don't really care. I understand that. That's where his lawyers

are based. And by the way, okay, so hold on. So as someone who works for the rail company, I mean, if you're operating the trains and the trains go through various states, I mean, couldn't you argue that you've worked in those states? I said he didn't work in those states. I don't know if that was the case with him, right? Yeah, so. So lawyers are based

in Pennsylvania. Yeah. But okay, so he can hire lawyers anywhere. But so he wants to file the lawsuit in Pennsylvania because that's where his lawyers are. And also because he thinks he has the best chance at justice there. I get it pragmatically. There are other states that tend to have certain regulations in place that favor the companies over the best interests of the employees. So I

can understand that, right? Right. So why is it that Norfolk Southern gets to dictate where the lawsuit would be filed as opposed to the employee who's filing the lawsuit in the first place? Well, I don't think they should. Southern wanted him to file the lawsuit in a state that's far friendlier to business interests. My standard would be where he worked, where he was exposed to this

bestest. That would be my expectation. I don't obviously am not in charge. Again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm also not a king. Yeah, the reason that I bring it up is obviously like the outcome. We agree on that. I'm already trying to sort of cast my mind forward to how conservatives would sue some company that sells medication abortion in a different state, but they sue

it in Texas so they can get them fined for $10 billion. I don't know if Texas has the same sort of consent by registration law as Pennsylvania. But like I told myself I need to look up who composed the five. Because sometimes the Supreme Court will do something that can seem really good, but it is setting up a future decision. That's my fear. Okay, so let's

talk a little bit. I'm not trying to be a contrarian. No, no, I'm going to answer your question. So the individual, the Supreme Court just as is who voted in favor of the employee here. Included Neil Gorsuch who wrote the opinion, the majority opinion joined by Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito. I know the sounds like not good so far. But then I think that's the reason why

I'm not a lawyer. And you've got Sonia Sotomayor and Katangi Brown Jackson. It was a five four ruling. Okay, that's a toughy. So more on that at issue, rights the Wall Street Journal was a Pennsylvania law requiring the companies operating within the state consent to lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania courts, even if the allegations involved conduct that took place elsewhere. So it's really about state law here.

Norfolk Southern argued that imposing such liability on the railroad, which is based in Georgia and operates in 22 states, plus the District of Columbia, violated the Constitution's due process clause. But the Supreme Court, the majority of Supreme Court justices disagreed with that. It is incredibly interesting. I don't know that I've ever heard of. I didn't know that John was anti-worker, but we've learned something new every

day. Not this particular worker, I hate all of them. They're peasants and they need to be ground into the dirt. No, I just, I'm trying to be consistent. I know it's pointless. There's no, why would somebody who talks about politics on the Internet be consistent? I am trying to do that though. It's pointless and it reflects poorly on me and on the network. So I apologize.

So let me give you a little bit of the reasoning from Gorsuch, who again wrote the majority opinion in this case. States required consent to liability in exchange for the rights to exploit the local market and to receive the full range of benefits enjoyed by in state corporations, he wrote. Norfolk Southern, Gorsuch said, had complied with the Pennsylvania requirement for decades. So he's basically saying, listen,

bro, Norfolk Southern, all you executives, you guys agreed to this. And you've agreed to it and have been agreeing to it for literally decades. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Okay, so the lawsuit has been filed in Pennsylvania. You have agreed to lawsuits being filed against you in the state of Pennsylvania in order to operate in the state. So, I'm not going to say

that. Sorry. Now there's an interesting perspective from one of our members and I actually, no, no, this is good. This is good. I actually think there might be something to this. So, repect the political cap boy writes in and says, I think the Supreme Court and the Democrats at large at a large degree have noticed that people are upset. The cost of living is just unreal

and unsustainable. The corporations and scotas have gone just a little too far with their recent antics and scandals. People aren't just noticing, they're taking notice. People are unionizing and coming together. Basically the point that our viewers try to make here is maybe the Supreme Court is like, are we the baddies? You know, and they're a little worried about distrust toward these institutions. And maybe they're just

trying to be good boys and girls for now. And rule in a way that actually favors employees over employers. I don't know if that's really the motivating factor here. What I do know is that the ruling that we're talking about today, the ruling that we discussed on the show recently, which was also pretty pro worker. These are good decisions from a very conservative Supreme Court. And

I'll take what we can get. And the election on yesterday too. Right? We are fair. Right. Fair insane radicals. He's got this disdain for workers all of a sudden. I felt fair when I said it. But anyway, yes, we give credit when credit is due. They're insane radicals. One of us is a drunk and a sexual assaulter. Another belong to a Christian cult, but they did

some good stuff. Mixed bag. You decide which is which. Thanks for watching the young turk. So really appreciated. Another way to show support is through YouTube memberships. You'll get to interact with us more. There's live chat emojis. Badges. You got emojis of me and a John JR. So those are super fun. But you also get playback of our exclusive member only shows and specials right after

they air. So all that all you got to do is click that join button right underneath the video. Thank you.