3 ms·

> See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.... Where is the 2014 Supreme

> See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.... Where is the 2014 Supreme Court ruling mentioned by this article?

smoe 6y ago
Seems to be this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-ru... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf
- AlexCoventry 6y ago
  Thanks.
tzs 6y ago
Something went wrong with your link, replacing a large part of it with "..". I think this is the unmangled link [1]. Anyway, there wasn't actually a Supreme Court ruling. The workers appealed their loss in the appellate court to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Aside from a few specific types of cases the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction rather than mandatory jurisdiction. This was one of those discretionary jurisdiction cases. When they decline to take a case they generally do not give a reason. It may be because they think the appellate court got it right and there is nothing more to say on the issue. On the other hand, it may be because they think the appellate court is not right but what is right is not clear and they want to see the issue arise in other districts and see what the appellate courts in those other districts decide before they take a case on the issue. Or they may be ready to tackle the issue, but they just don't like this particular case as a vehicle for deciding the issue and want to wait for a case that would work better. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-amazon-warehouse-worker-wage-appeal-idUSKBN1WM1FI https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-...

> See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.... Where is the 2014 Supreme Court ruling mentioned by this article?

smoe 6y ago

Seems to be this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-ru... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf

AlexCoventry 6y ago
Thanks.

tzs 6y ago

Something went wrong with your link, replacing a large part of it with "..". I think this is the unmangled link [1]. Anyway, there wasn't actually a Supreme Court ruling. The workers appealed their loss in the appellate court to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Aside from a few specific types of cases the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction rather than mandatory jurisdiction. This was one of those discretionary jurisdiction cases. When they decline to take a case they generally do not give a reason. It may be because they think the appellate court got it right and there is nothing more to say on the issue. On the other hand, it may be because they think the appellate court is not right but what is right is not clear and they want to see the issue arise in other districts and see what the appellate courts in those other districts decide before they take a case on the issue. Or they may be ready to tackle the issue, but they just don't like this particular case as a vehicle for deciding the issue and want to wait for a case that would work better. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-amazon-warehouse-worker-wage-appeal-idUSKBN1WM1FI https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-...