Connect with us

Are federal workers being forced into involuntary servitude?



Many federal employees are being ordered by the federal government to work without pay until a spending bill is enacted.

Some workers object, arguing that they are being pressured to show up for work with no clear prospect of a payday. Some individuals have sued claiming that this violates the 13th Amendment, which abolished involuntary servitude.

Will they win?


For now, the answer is likely no. In my law review article, “Compulsory Labor in a National Emergency,” I found that legal protections against forced labor often fail to help workers.

Why most 13th Amendment lawsuits fail

Every year, a small number of workers prevail in involuntary servitude cases.

The legal standard for arguing that someone is working against their will is evidence of physical or legal coercion. The Supreme Court articulated the standard in 1988 in a case about two mentally disabled men working on a farm.

The best way to explain the standard is with an example.


In Mouloki v. Epee, a nanny named Christine Mouloki sued the husband and wife who employed her for wages and damages. She alleged that the family refused to let her leave their suburban home near Chicago.

The court concluded that a “scheme, plan, or pattern intended to convince a plaintiff (person) that serious harm or physical restraint would result if she did not continue to perform the labor and services” constitutes involuntary servitude. At trial, the nanny won her case.

But plenty of involuntary lawsuits fail. The most common are from high school students whose school districts require them to perform community service as a condition to graduate.


In one such case, students were required to provide 50 hours of community service during their four years in school. Parents sued, alleging a violation of the 13th Amendment.

The court rejected the 13th Amendment claim, stating: “Graduation from a public high school is an important opportunity, but the threat of not graduating does not rise to the level of ‘physical or legal coercion.’”

Pressure, not coercion

Federal employees working without pay fall in the gray area between the high school and nanny scenario.


So far, their situation does not present the coercion in the nanny’s home confinement case. The main impediment for the federal employees’ case is that lack of coercion, not lack of pay for their labor. In a preliminary ruling, workers lost a motion for an injunction but they are scheduled to make a similar motion soon – and as time passes, their case improves.

For now, however, these employees can call in sick, take vacation time or simply not answer the phone or emails from a supervisor. A court would likely view an order to work without being paid as unfair, or a violation of wage laws, but not coercion.The Conversation

Michael H. LeRoy, Professor of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
Continue Reading


Ex-Defense Secretary lays into Trump’s Syria pullout: He ‘plays into’ authoritarians’ hands to ‘weaken the United States’



On Monday's edition of CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta blasted President Donald Trump over his foreign policy — particularly his withdrawal from Syria.

"Secretary Panetta, just generally what do you make of how this whole withdrawal, non-withdrawal is being handled by the White House?" asked Cooper. "We're seeing the administration trying to walk back a broad policy announcement from the president."

"I think from the very beginning this has been a — probably the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in recent history," said Panetta. "And there is no way when you commit a blunder like this that involves the consequences we're now seeing, there's no way to paint this picture as if somehow everything's going well."

Continue Reading


Trump says he’ll ‘probably terminate’ the New York Times and Washington Post ‘from the White House’



President Donald Trump's Monday night Fox News interview was a televised version of his Twitter rants. Typically The Washington Post is his favorite foe, due to ownership by actual billionaire Jeff Bezos, but in his interview with Sean Hannity, Trump also attacked The New York Times.

"The media is corrupt. Not all the media. I know some great people, including you, but I know some great journalists," Trump said. "Look, they give Pulitzer Prizes to people that got it wrong. In all these people from The New York Times which is the fake newspaper, we don't even want it in the White House anymore, and we're probably going to terminate that and The Washington Post from the White House they are fake."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Marco Rubio says it was a ‘bad look’ for Trump to pick Doral for G7 — after several days of defending the decision



On Monday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) admitted that it was a "bad look" for President Donald Trump to call for hosting the next annual G7 summit at the Trump National Doral golf resort in Miami, Florida:

“Obviously you know, given everything that's going on, it was a bad look,” Rubio said of G7 at Doral, though he doubts Trump wanted to make money. “As a Floridian I thought it was great that they were going to come down, especially in June when we don't have as many visitors."

— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) October 22, 2019

Continue Reading
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.