Are you aware that Safeway and Albertsons are opting out of being sued? #Safeway #Albertsons #lawsuits #classactionlawsuits #legalquestions
Have you heard about the decision made by Safeway and Albertsons to opt out of being sued for class action lawsuits? Let’s dive into whether this move is legal or not and discuss its implications.
It’s just like most HR policies, it’s not about legal or illegal, it’s just what the company wants. It’s more about people’s perception rather than it actually being true/legal.
I smell a new boycott
I’ve been shopping Safeway for years, since I was a child. I couldn’t agree to any terms and conditions as a child legally, and I never agreed to new terms and conditions as an adult, and since those terms and conditions are not publically posted at the entrance to the building, you cannot expect one to know there are terms or conditions to shop at the store.
This is nothing more than a sovereign citizen crackpot theory for corporations. “I exempt myself from the law.”
If I recall correctly: Albertsons was constantly getting sued because some locations’ management teams would ask their employees to clock out at the end of their shift THEN come back and finish up whatever was left over. Most older folks said no and went home while those who were younger (i.e. high school kids) didn’t know better and would stay behind and finish up whatever needed done.
I remember hearing about this around the time Albertsons and Safeway “merged” and it was Safeway that was surprised by these allegations but it only came out post-merger.
Can employees opt out of arbitration in preference for class actions and jury trials? Why is it valid for them to do this but not for the workers?
There are many cases where terms of service/terms of use agreements are binding and many cases where they aren’t. Obviously this varies wildly from state to state, where ToS-based arbitration agreements are pretty rarely upheld in California, and where they’re almost always upheld in Florida.
It is absolutely insane that any legal system would allow an entity to simply exempt itself.
Unless you have my signature on my contract you can pound sand.
Was recently told to fill out some more forms for my job. It was a contract along these lines. I was 5 minutes till shift end, saw it was multiple pages, and that the first paragraph summarized that I waive my rights to trial / court whatever (barely skimmed it basically) before going “oh naw dawg”. Just closed it and left. Not signing that. I’ll find a new job before I waive my rights to bring the internal rife to external justice. F that.
If you sign an agreement that says you can’t litigate, you’re basically SOL.
It’s why people should never sign these things, ever.
Everyone does though, because “convenient.”
U-Haul almost literally killed me in their negligence. I couldn’t sue them, because I signed the form that said “you can’t sue us.”
So… yea.
I have no idea about this class action lawsuit, but this does remind me of a funny story from a Multi-District Litigation class l once took.
During our unit on mandatory arbitration, we learned about a company that had done exactly this: added a mandatory arbitration clause to their TOU to force each person to litigate on their own. Cue malicious compliance: All the members of the class did just that! The corp was inundated with a mountain of disputes. And even though they were all basically the same (the entire concept behind class actions), now each complaint/dispute had to be litigated separately – each with its own filings, attorneys, etc.
In the end, what they probably thought was a tricky new term ended up costing the corp multiples of what they would have paid without the mandatory arbitration clause.
Edited Typo
It is probably legal. Consumers in America don’t have many rights. The right to pursue justice through the courts was one of the few means to fight injustice and wrongs. Those who advocate for a “free market” actually only want the freedom to prey on their workers and customers without accountability.
![gif](giphy|8nM6YNtvjuezzD7DNh|downsized)
With arbitrations, an arbitrator—usually a retired judge or lawyer *whose salary the employer pays*—mediates the dispute and decides who is correct. The decision is legally binding.
With arbitrations, the company holds all the power, because the person they hire is going to side with them almost all of the time (lest they find themselves out of a job).
Nope. I don’t accept those terms.
That’s bull and won’t work…..
I’m not going to ship at a place that demands arbitration. That just means if they fuck up and something horrible happens to you, you will never receive proper compensation.
I mean at this point they might as well be ownd by BlackRock or vanguard like everyone else.
So we can just opt out of shit now? Cool. I choose rent and student loan payments.
Isn’t there a recent ruling that we CANNOT give up our right to sue? I don’t recall the details.