Elena Kagan Writes an Awesome Dissent


Four years ago Laura Symczyk filed a collective action against Genesis Healthcare Corp., alleging that it broke the law by automatically deducting 30 minutes per shift for meal breaks even when employees worked during the breaks. Genesis made a $7,500 settlement offer to Symczyk personally, but admitted no liability to the rest of its workforce. It was an obvious attempt to make the case go away cheaply, and Symczyk declined the offer. Her suit then went to trial, where Genesis put up an odd defense: By allowing its offer to lapse, Genesis said, Symczyk no longer had a personal stake in the case, which was therefore moot and should be tossed out. A district court agreed, as did the Third Circuit Court. Eventually the case made its way to the Supreme Court, and today, Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, made her view plain:

That thrice-asserted view is wrong, wrong, and wrong again…. When a plaintiff rejects such an offer—however good the terms—her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was be­fore.

….After the offer lapsed, just as before, Symczyk possessed an unsatis­fied claim, which the court could redress by awarding her damages. As long as that remained true, Symczyk’s claim was not moot, and the District Court could not send her away empty-handed. So a friendly suggestion to the Third Circuit: Rethink your mootness-by-unaccepted-offer theo­ry. And a note to all other courts of appeals: Don’t try this at home.

That’s some fine opinion mongering there. But wait. Why was Kagan writing in dissent? Because the conservative majority, for hypertechnical reasons, decided that Symczyk had tacitly accepted that her claim was moot, and based its entire decision on that premise. Kagan again:

But what if that premise is bogus? The decision would turn out to be the most one-off of one-offs, explaining only what (the majority thinks) should happen [] when something that in fact never happens [] is errantly thought to have done so….Feel free to rele­gate the majority’s decision to the furthest reaches of your mind: The situation it addresses should never again arise.

Shazam! Anyone who can write a Supreme Court opinion like that is OK in my book. (Via Eugene Volokh.)

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.