Providing for Consideration of S. 5, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 5, CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - February 16, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, for years the Republican majority proposed so-called ``reforms'' to class action lawsuits. Time after time, the House would pass legislation limiting class action plaintiffs only to see their attempts to dismantle the class action system die either with Senate inaction or in conference.
Mr. Speaker, it looks as though the Republican leadership has finally gamed the system to the point where it appears that they will succeed in severely limiting the rights of many of the most vulnerable citizens in this country.
Dismantling the class action lawsuit system has long been a big priority for big business groups. Last year, for instance, the Chamber spent $50 million in lobbying. Now they are getting what they paid for, because this bill obliterating the class action system is one of the first bills to be considered in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that despite the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, we still have a pay-to-play system. The other body considered this bill first. The plan was that the House take up the Senate bill if the other body could pass a clean bill without any amendments. The Senate succeeded in passing a bad bill and the House is now following suit.
Let me be clear. Despite the rhetoric on the other side, this is still a bad bill. Today, the other side will tell scary stories about greedy trial lawyers and how awful and unfair their practices are, but the Republican leadership will not talk about how this bill limits the rights of low-wage workers to seek justice from employers who have cheated them out of their wages or have discriminated against them. They will not talk about how they are limiting workers' rights and, with the passage of this bill, are encouraging the bad apples in the big business community to continue cheating their employees out of their hard-earned wages and rights.
In most cases, State laws provide greater civil rights protections than Federal law. Every State has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. Some States have laws that go beyond the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
The same is true with age discrimination. There are also States that provide protections that are not covered by Federal law. These Federal laws are intended to be floors, not ceilings. We should commend States that extend further rights to their citizens, not punish them.
This bill federalizes class action and mass torts, moving these cases from State to Federal courts. If the bill is signed into law, hard-working Americans will be denied the right to use their own State courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate laws that are unique to their State.
Consider, for example, a class action lawsuit brought against a national corporation by employees of a store in Massachusetts because that store discriminates on the basis of ancestry, place of birth, or citizenship status. Massachusetts provides protections afforded by State law, but not by Federal law. Under this bill, except in very rare instances, that case would be sent to a Federal court instead of State court, even though the case is based on a violation of State law.
A class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart was recently filed in Massachusetts. The suit alleges that Wal-Mart failed to pay employees for the time worked and did not give them proper meal and rest breaks. These are serious charges. If the Class Action Fairness Act is signed into law, future cases like this would not be tried in Massachusetts court, but instead would be transferred to Federal court.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Federal courts are already over burdened, but we also know that the Federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of State law. In effect, this bill is rigging the system on behalf of the corporations and against the interests of workers.
We often hear a lot of lofty rhetoric on the other side about States rights. Apparently the other side only supports the rights of States if they agree with the laws of those States.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is opposed by the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights; the Alliance for Justice; the National Conference of State Legislatures; 14 State Attorneys General; AFSCME; and environmental groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the National Environmental Trust. These are just a few of the groups who oppose this bill, and none of them represent the trial lawyers. They oppose this bill because it will limit fairness, it will limit justice, and it will ultimately hurt everyday Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about trial lawyers; it is about average citizens. The opponents of this bill are committed to fairness. We are committed to justice. And this bill robs the American people of their rights to fairness and justice in the judicial system. It closes the courthouse door in the face of people who need and deserve help.
I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia had kind of quoted from a study implying that most of these class-action cases would remain in States, that the whole purpose of this bill is to try to move them to Federal courts.
Let me quote from a CBO cost estimate which says that under this bill, most class-action lawsuits would be heard in Federal District Court, rather than in the State court.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I guess it is politically popular to attack lawyers and judges, but what I am concerned about is what this bill will do to average people who are seeking remedies for being mistreated.
I want to read an excerpt from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, AFL/CIO, and the Alliance for Justice statement. One of things they point out is that nowhere has a case been made that abuses exist in anti-discrimination and wage and hour class action litigation.
They point out by allowing dozens of employees to bring one lawsuit together, the class action device is frequently the only means for low-wage workers who have been denied mere dollars a day to recover their lost wages. Moreover, class actions are also often the only means to effectively change a policy of discrimination.
Wage and hour class actions are most often brought in States under the law of the State in which the claim arises. The reason is that State wage and hour laws typically provide more complete remedies for victims of wage and hour violations than the Federal wage and hour statute. For instance, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act offers no protection, no protection for a worker who works 30 hours and is paid for 20, so long as the worker's total pay for the 30 hours worked exceeds the Federal minimum wage. However, many States have payment of wage laws that would require that the workers be fully paid for those additional 10 hours of work.
Also, Federal law provides no remedy for part-time workers who often work 10- to 16-hour days, yet earn no overtime because they work less than 40 hours per week. At least six States and territories, however, including California and Alaska, require payment of overtime after a prescribed number of hours of work in a single day. Likewise, State laws increasingly provide greater civil rights protections than Federal laws. For example, every State has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. Some of these State statutes provide a broader definition of disability and a greater range of protection in comparison to the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, including California, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia.
In addition, every State has enacted a law prohibiting age discrimination in employment. Some of these State laws, including those in California, Michigan, Ohio and the District of Columbia, contain provisions affording greater protection to older workers than comparable provisions of the Federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act. In addition, many State laws provide protections to classifications not covered by Federal law. For example, many States provide expanded benefits based on marital status, and I could go on and on and on.
The point of the matter here is that this legislation is basically denying people the rights and the protections that many of them have fought so hard to earn in their States, and it leads to more injustice and more unfairness.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a couple of cases here.
Mrs. Higgins of Tennessee was a 39-year-old woman who died of a sudden heart attack after taking Vioxx. She was the mother of a 9-year-old son. When she was diagnosed with the early onset of rheumatoid arthritis, Vioxx was prescribed. She had no former cardiac problems or family history. According to her medical records, Mrs. Higgins was in otherwise excellent health; but on September 25, 2004, she died of a sudden heart attack, less than a month after she started taking Vioxx. She was buried on the very day in September that Merck took Vioxx off the market.
On October 28, 2004, her husband, Monty, filed a claim against Merck in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic City Division.
Why New Jersey? This couple is from Tennessee. Because that is the State where Merck is headquartered. In an interview on ``60 Minutes,'' Mr. Higgins said, ``I believe my wife would be here if Merck had decided to take Vioxx off the market just 1 month earlier.''
Then there is Richard ``Dickie'' Irvin of Florida who was a 53-year-old former football coach and president of the Athletic Booster Association. He had received his college football scholarship and was inducted into the school's football hall of fame. He went on to play in Canadian league football until suffering a career-ending injury. In addition to coaching, he worked at a family-owned seafood shop where he was constantly moving crates of seafood. He rarely went to see a doctor and had no major medical problems.
In April of 2001, Mr. Irvin was prescribed Vioxx for his football knee injury from years ago. Approximately 23 days after he began taking Vioxx, Mr. Irvin died from a sudden, unexpected heart attack. An autopsy revealed that his heart attack was caused by a sudden blood clot. This is the exact type of injury that has been associated with Vioxx use. Mr. Irvin and his wife of 31 years had four children and three grandchildren.
I could read more cases involving Vioxx, but most people in this House, Mr. Speaker, probably agree with me that Merck should be held accountable if they knew about the harmful effects of Vioxx.
The class action section of this bill, however, would allow Merck and other corporate defendants to delay their day of reckoning for years and years and years; and justice for these individuals' families would be delayed; and justice delayed is justice denied. Again, this bill should be defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me close by saying, this bill is not about lawyers. It is about people, and it is about State governments and attorney generals being able to pass laws in their own States to better protect their people. And it is ironic and it is almost kind of laughable that the majority, which has made it a point to argue on behalf of States right, is basically turning its back on what States have done to protect their people.
The previous speaker talked about making sure that the plaintiffs got what they deserved. Well, we are concerned about making sure that the plaintiffs get their day in court. And under this bill it makes it more difficult, especially for low-wage workers, for people who are battling discrimination to be able to have their day in court.
The system clearly can be improved. Nobody is arguing that. What I am saying here is that the bill before us does not provide the justice and the fairness that I think is appropriate. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov