Supreme Court's Refusal to Resolve Differences Upsets Companies

By Bob Drummond Bloomberg News | THE JOURNAL RECORD, May 5, 1997 | Go to article overview

Supreme Court's Refusal to Resolve Differences Upsets Companies


Bob Drummond Bloomberg News, THE JOURNAL RECORD


WASHINGTON -- If the Supreme Court won't resolve a dispute among lower courts, who will?

That's a question plenty of companies face because of cases like those involving Dillard Department Stores Inc. and Preferred Meal Systems Inc. Both opened themselves to penalties by firing workers without the 60-day notice required by a federal plant-closing law. Yet, one U.S. appeals court told Dillard it had to pay a little more than eight weeks' wages to fired Louisiana workers, while a different appeals court in Pennsylvania said Preferred owed about 12 weeks' pay.

The Supreme Court could lay down the law in a disagreement like this. But the high court balked, something it's doing more often when the nation's 13 federal appeals courts reach conflicting conclusions. "It's frustrating and confusing," said Elliot Mandel, a lawyer for Preferred, who asked the high court to clear up questions about the penalty. The Supreme Court doesn't say why it will or won't hear a case, and unlike other federal courts, it can take a case or leave it. To win high-court review, an appeal needs backing from four of the nine justices. "You never know why they consider certain things important or not," said Washington lawyer William Kilberg. This much is clear: The court hears about half as many cases as it did in the 1960s, and at least some of the reduction is due to the court's reluctance to tackle lower-court disagreements. Some of the credit or blame for this may lie with Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He says that the Supreme Court's main job is to deal with great constitutional or legal issues -- not pedestrian commercial squabbles that won't go down in the history books. These days, lawyers say, a conflict among two appeals courts isn't enough to grab the court's attention. Instead, the court waits for more lower courts to address the same question, hoping that things will clear up without intervention by Rehnquist and company. That looks like the Supreme Court's stand on the plant-closing law, which says companies must give 60 days notice before a plant closing or major layoff. If they don't, the law says employers must pay workers one day's wage for each day without the required notice. After Preferred closed a Pennsylvania plant that made pre-packaged school meals, a Philadelphia appeals court said the company owed workers 60 days pay, including weekends. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Supreme Court's Refusal to Resolve Differences Upsets Companies
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.