Litigation vs. Compassion: Workplace Rights and Labor Law

Introduction

The claim that common sense and compassion in the workplace have been replaced by litigation touches on many issues regarding employees and their working conditions. While just a few decades ago employees were largely at the mercy of the employer and the wage contract, growing activism and international requirements for labor protection have created a need for government intervention. This intervention has resulted in numerous laws and requirements, beginning with social security and now encompassing a wide range of legislation.

The argument that common sense and compassion have been entirely replaced by litigation is not, however, wholly correct. The topic must be understood from the perspective that litigation has itself created law and forced the adoption of welfare measures. It is also argued in this context that greed — whether corporate or individual — can undermine compassion and common sense. Therefore, enforcement of laws and regulatory compliance remain the surest means of protecting worker rights in the workplace. Coupled with genuine compassion and common sense, statutory requirements can function even more effectively. Litigation is thus a necessity for shaping society and the law, and this is the central argument of this paper.

Employee Rights and Litigation

To understand whether litigation has replaced compassion, it is useful to examine the employment process from hiring through separation and to ask whether there was meaningful compassion in the workplace to begin with. Research suggests that while conscience-based arrangements function in some countries, they are largely absent in the United States, which still operates under a number of outdated statutes that actually impede employee welfare.

A study by Torres and Preziosi (2008) reviewed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations and found that this outdated law, applied to the contemporary workforce, produces a very negative impact on compensation systems and business operations — generating legal exposure, associated costs, and adverse business effects. Preventative measures, including updated policies and systems, could be taken to avoid or correct these challenges (Torres & Preziosi, 2008).

The implementation of mandatory statutes can thus carry unintended negative consequences. If employment and hiring present legal hurdles, then managing terminations and adhering to all contract clauses and employee welfare requirements can impose enormous costs on firms. This reduces profit margins, and firms with limited financial resources — small and medium-sized businesses in particular — may struggle to provide the compensation and fringe benefits needed to attract qualified full-time, permanent employees. This situation has given rise to the increasing use of temporary and contract employees, who typically do not receive such benefits. The temporary and part-time staffing approach substantially reduces the legal requirements and costs that employers face, and this model has spread to companies in Europe as well. Temporary employment serves as a means of avoiding employment taxes, reducing fringe benefits, eliminating workers' compensation obligations, and lowering bookkeeping and payroll costs (Zimmermann & Gowan, 1999).

These constraints often lead firms to cut corners and impose harsher conditions on labor. The attitudes and values of individual firms also play a decisive role. A comparison of U.S. and Canadian employer practices illustrates the point clearly. Researchers examining multinational corporations' employee termination practices in both countries found that, while the companies claimed a uniform corporate termination process with no meaningful difference in employee legal protections between the two countries, structural and procedural differences in fact existed. In the United States, money is directed toward legal professionals — paying lawyers — while in Canada, emphasis is placed on severance packages — paying workers (Nielsen, 1999). This finding demonstrates that compassion and fairness in the workplace are unlikely to prevail unless the threat of litigation makes non-compliance more costly than compliance itself.

Changed Perceptions of Corporate Responsibility

The nature of employment is changing, and with it, employee loyalty and workers' sense of belonging to an organization. Corporate culture in Western economies is also evolving. Today, society demands a different standard of behavior from corporations. The key concept driving this shift is corporate social responsibility (CSR) — the expectation that organizations give something back to society. Researchers have noted that managers' perceptions, organizational demographics, and perceived stakeholder influence all shape organizational performance in this domain (Lindgreen, Swaen, & Johnston, 2009).

In the United States, disclosure of certain environmental and climate change-related information is mandated, while European Union rules require disclosure of certain non-financial key performance indicators, including information relating to environmental and employee matters. Significant ambiguity persists in U.S. mandatory disclosure requirements, and the U.S. system falls short of the transparency standards found in the EU's comparable Directive (Szabó, 2011). This gap suggests that relying on common sense alone to bring about workplace justice is insufficient.

Conclusion

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a federal law regulating private employer-sponsored employee benefit plans, required extensive judicial interpretation. ERISA's broad preemption language was interpreted by courts to preclude states from most forms of regulation of employer health plans, including benefit design, except through regulation of insurance products and employer expenditure requirements in state health reform financing (Borzi, 2008).

One of the most important aspects of workplace governance is that the actual demographic composition of the workplace and the rules that govern workplace interactions are substantially determined by law. The tendency of workplaces to foster constructive co-worker interactions is made possible by judicial interventions. Although informal sociability and cooperation should in principle arise organically, many rights in the workplace — including individual employee privacy rights — depend on recognition by common law (Estlund, 2003). These rights do not arise spontaneously or through collective goodwill; they are frequently the product of judgments reached through litigation.

For example, the question of whether an agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes bars the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief — such as back pay, reinstatement, and damages — in an enforcement action alleging violations of Title I of the ADA could only be resolved through the courts. In the relevant Supreme Court case, the Court held that arbitration agreements can be enforced without contravening the important social policies furthered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (United States Supreme Court, 2002).

It can therefore be asserted that civil rights enforcement produced equal opportunity in employment, education, housing, and public accommodations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed compliance requirements on classical personnel practices. Had equal opportunity law been as straightforward as wage-and-hours law, employers would have had little additional compliance work to perform (Dobbin, 2009). The reality that extensive legal infrastructure became necessary demonstrates how far the workplace was from achieving fairness through compassion alone.

Litigation has not replaced common sense and compassion in the workplace; rather, it has ensured employees' legal protections, and judicial interventions have been the driving force behind many labor reforms. There may be a continuing need, as society changes, to reinterpret existing laws. The enforcement of equal opportunity law and other labor statutes frequently requires fresh legal interpretation. What remains clear is that litigation and compassion are not mutually exclusive — legal enforcement establishes the floor of acceptable conduct upon which genuine workplace compassion can be built.

Borzi, Phyllis C. (2008). There's "Private" and then there's "Private": ERISA, its impact, and options for reform. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36(4), 660–669.

Dobbin, Frank. (2009). Inventing equal opportunity. Princeton University Press.

Estlund, Cynthia. (2003). Working together: How workplace bonds strengthen a diverse democracy. Oxford University Press.

Lindgreen, Adam; Swaen, Valérie; & Johnston, Wesley J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation of U.S. organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 303–323.

Nielsen, Laura. (1999). Paying workers or paying lawyers: Employee termination practices in the United States and Canada. Law & Policy, 21(3), 247–282.

Studdert, David M. (2002). The Americans with Disabilities Act in action. American Journal of Epidemiology, 156(3), 219–229.

Szabó, Dániel Gergely. (2011). Disclosure of material CSR information in the periodic reports: Comparison of the mandatory CSR disclosure systems for listed companies in the EU and the US. Nordic & European Company Law Working Paper, No. 10-20.

Torres, Ruth; & Preziosi, Robert C. (2008). Management & law: FLSA regulations and compensation policies — their legal exposure and business impact. Journal of Business and Economics Research, 6(11).

United States Supreme Court. (2002). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 99-1823. Argued October 10, 2001; Decided January 15, 2002.

Zimmermann, Raymond A.; & Gowan, Mary A. (1999). Determinants of independent contractor status: Outcomes of U.S. court cases. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(2), 14–28.