4 ms·
I suspect the reason for this is that it postpones the need to resolve the action before providing relief to the workers. Without this notice, Amazon could cont
by talkingtab 4y ago
I suspect the reason for this is that it postpones the need to resolve the action before providing relief to the workers. Without this notice, Amazon could continue to to illegally fire people and eventually might have to pay a price. With an injunction and a threat of contempt the stakes for Amazon to do that are much much higher. Contempt it not something you want to mess with either as a lawyer or as an entity. This basically says "if you continue to fire people and we find (now or later) that you have done so illegally you will be in contempt.
Probably the issue for Amazon is whether they will be able to successfully argue that they had no idea what they were doing was illegal. I'm unclear on what will happen to a lawyer (if anything) for knowingly participating in contempt. Not a lawyer and not a legal expert so just guessing.
- yellow_lead 4y agoWhat happens when a company is found to be in contempt of court?
- simfree 4y agoIdeally the company's officers would be held in contempt and serve time, but realistically it will just be a monetary fine and no real justice will be had for the employees lives who have been disrupted.
- NegativeLatency 4y agoThe system is working as intended
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIndividuals receive injunctions too for civil proceedings.
- barbariangrunge 4y agoWhat about everybody who isn't a corporation who get's told "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
- chii 4y agoit's not ignorance of the law - it's that the courts have not ruled on an issue, and so an injunction is appropriate while waiting on said ruling.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]