Print

Doctrinal Feedback and (Un)Reasonable Care

The law frequently derives its content from the practices of the community it regulates. Examples are legion: Tort’s reasonable care standard demands that we all exercise the prudence of an “ordinary” person. Ambiguous contracts find meaning in the custom and usage of trade. The Fourth Amendment examines our collective expectations of privacy. And so on. This recourse to real-world circumstance has intuitive appeal, in that it helps courts resolve fact-dependent disputes and lends legitimacy to their judgments.

Yet real-world practice can depart from that which the law expects. For example, suppose a physician provides more-than-reasonable care—extra tests, unneeded procedures, etc.—so as to steer clear of tort liability’s considerable gray area. If other physicians follow suit, their precautions slowly but surely become the new legal norm, as the reasonable care standard dutifully absorbs the conduct of those it governs. Instead of discouraging wasteful practices, the law feeds them back into doctrine, making overcompliance into mere compliance and ratcheting up the standard of care. Overcautious physicians then have to do even more to steer clear of liability, and the cycle begins anew.

This Article provides a general model of this “doctrinal feedback” phenomenon and then applies it to medical malpractice, where tort’s reasonable care standard has caused an unhealthy and unappreciated feedback effect and has led the law to require an unreasonable level of care. In doing so, it reveals feedback’s surprisingly common formative factors and demonstrates its potential to skew legal norms in a variety of otherwise dissimilar fields.

Preserving Collective-Action Rights in Employment Arbitration

Arbitration has great promise as a vehicle for efficiently and cost-effectively resolving work-related disputes on the merits—and doing so in a way that is more likely than litigation to satisfy all concerned parties. To preserve this promise, judges and policymakers must be vigilant in monitoring the use of arbitration by nonunion employers, lest it become a tool for exacerbating the imbalances of power between workers and management, and, thus, ultimately discredited. Of particular concern are attempts by employers to use predispute arbitration agreements as a means of class-action avoidance. Indeed, the prospect of limiting exposure to large-scale employment litigation through arbitration has given companies a substantial incentive to require their workers, as a condition of employment, to waive the right to sue in court and instead submit claims to binding arbitration.

The proliferation of employer-promulgated arbitration pacts that explicitly or implicitly prohibit multiparty actions likely will bring to the fore a question which courts have yet to confront directly: whether such an agreement, entered into as a precondition of employment, constitutes an unfair labor practice by interfering with the rights of employees to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose . . . of mutual aid or protection,” as guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

Precedent indicates that many employment arbitration agreements are, in fact, vulnerable to unfair-labor-practice charges to the extent that they require employees to surrender their rights to collaborate in dispute resolution as a condition of employment. This Note suggests, however, that employers can preserve a form of mandatory individual arbitration without undermining the policies behind Section 7, offering a solution through which employers and employees can retain the practical benefits of arbitration within a system that allows employees to work in conjunction with one another to resolve claims of mutual concern. Specifically, it advocates that employers embrace transparency in their arbitration systems by instituting procedures that provide for public disclosure of outcomes and the right of participants to present relevant prior awards as persuasive precedent.

Such an approach—which this Note terms “open arbitration”—not only would allow courts to reconcile the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements” with the objectives of Section 7, but it also would mute many of the criticisms that have led courts to invalidate mandatory ADR agreements.

(Over)Valuing Uniformity

Providing for the uniform interpretation of federal law has long been viewed as a primary goal of the federal court system, and the claimed need for uniformity has shaped the structure of the courts and the scope of their jurisdiction. For example, uniformity has been cited as grounds for broad federal question jurisdiction and for the creation of specialized federal courts. Most visibly, harmonizing interpretation of federal law has become an essential factor in the Supreme Court’s selection of cases for review; 70% of the Supreme Court’s docket is devoted to resolving disagreements over the meaning of federal law. 

This Article questions whether uniformity in and of itself has inherent value, and whether the benefits of eliminating moderate disuniformity in the interpretation of ambiguous federal statutes are worth the costs. Proponents of uniformity claim that divergent interpretations of federal law are unfair to litigants, undermine the legitimacy of federal law, create intolerable conflicts for interstate actors, and lead to forum shopping. The Article explores each argument in turn and finds none to be a compelling reason for federal courts to devote considerable time and resources to maintaining uniformity. For instance, litigants have no basis to claim they were treated unfairly when courts reach different conclusions about the meaning of an ambiguous statute as long as each interpretation is reasonable. Nor is the legitimacy of federal law called into question when judges disagree about the best way to fill gaps or resolve vague provisions in the statutes they construe. Indeed, the doctrine of Chevron deference recognizes, and even promotes, the possibility that ambiguous federal statutes can be construed in a variety of ways. Interstate actors are already required to comply with the varied legal regimes of the fifty states, so adjusting their conduct to accommodate divergent interpretations of federal law is not significantly more disruptive. And if forum shopping is truly a problem (which is questionable), a better solution might be to tighten venue rules rather than expend significant federal judicial resources on standardizing federal law. 

Furthermore, even in the relatively rare cases when uniformity is essential, the federal courts are not the ideal institution to provide it. Congress is responsible for enacting ambiguous laws that produce conflicting judicial interpretations, and Congress is better situated to determine when the benefits of uniformity outweigh the costs of achieving it. Accordingly, this Article contends that courts should avoid expending resources to standardize federal law, and should instead rely on Congress to legislate uniformity when needed.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.