Search form

Supreme Court: Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements Do Not Violate Federal Labor Law

By Jeffrey Schwartz, Daniel D. Schudroff, Collin O’Connor Udell, Samia M. Kirmani, Sherry L. Swieca and Stephanie L. Goutos
  • May 21, 2018

Class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a much-anticipated decision in three critical cases. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 16-307 (May 21, 2018).

The Supreme Court’s decision resolves the circuit split on whether class or collective action waivers contained in employment arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court held that the FAA states that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings are enforceable and neither the FAA nor the NLRA require otherwise. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito joined in that decision.

Background

Arbitration agreements requiring employees to pursue work-related claims in arbitration, rather than in court, have long been enforced pursuant to the FAA. However, in 2013, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that employers violate the NLRA when they require employees, as a condition of employment, to assent to an agreement to resolve work-related disputes pursuant to an arbitration provision containing a class or collective action waiver.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the NLRB’s rulings, first in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), and, subsequently, in Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015). The Fifth Circuit, thereafter, was joined by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Eighth Circuits, which enforced arbitration agreements requiring employees to submit their employment claims to individual, as opposed to class or collective, arbitration. (For more on D.R. Horton, see our article, Employer’s Mandatory Arbitration Clause Waiving Employee’s Right to Sue in Court Upheld.)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion on May 26, 2016, thereby creating a circuit split. In Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), the Seventh Circuit held arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from bringing or participating in class or collective actions violate the NLRA. In Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Seventh Circuit and the NLRB. (For more on these decisions, see our articles, Supreme Court Review Likely After Seventh Circuit Creates Split on Class and Collective Action Waivers under NLRA and Holding Class Waivers Violate the NLRA, Ninth Circuit Joins Circuit Split.)

Given the issue’s importance and the requests by both employers and the NLRB to have the Supreme Court decide the issue, it is unsurprising the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari in January 2017 and consolidated all three cases from the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. In the past, Supreme Court’s decisions on the enforceability of class action waivers (albeit outside the employment context) were decided by 5-4 and 5-3 votes and were authored by the late-Justice Antonin Scalia. Immediately following his passing, the likelihood of a 4-4 tie was expected, until Justice Gorsuch joined the Court in April 2017.

Moreover, in June 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General, which previously had filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on behalf of the NLRB seeking to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Murphy Oil, reversed course and advised the Supreme Court that it would join the employers’ positions in this case. The NLRB was permitted to represent itself before the Supreme Court, creating the novel scenario where the United States government presented arguments on both sides of this issue.

During the oral argument, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch did not ask any questions. Otherwise, the Justices’ questions to counsel can be seen in hindsight as foreshadowing the majority and the dissenters. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito primarily challenged NLRB General Counsel Richard Griffin, while Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor mostly queried the employers’ counsel.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The comprehensive opinion is succinct in its ultimate conclusion that the NLRA does not trump the FAA. Further, in applying common rules of statutory construction, the Court stated that Section 7 of the NLRA is focused on employees’ rights to unionize and engage in collective bargaining and that it does not extend to protecting an employee’s right to participate in a class or collective action.

Now, employers can be certain that class or collective action waivers in arbitration agreements do not violate the NLRA.

Jackson Lewis has represented Murphy Oil since the inception of the company’s case. At the certiorari stage, Jackson Lewis attorneys Jeffrey Schwartz, Daniel Schudroff, and Collin O’Connor Udell filed the brief for Respondent Murphy Oil in support of granting the petition for a writ of certiorari, an unusual procedural posture. Jackson Lewis also assisted on the briefs and in oral argument preparation and was present at the argument.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have any questions about the Court’s decision.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 10, 2018

Top Labor Law Developments for August and September 2018

October 10, 2018

President Donald Trump nominated Mark Gaston Pearce for a third term on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on August 28. Pearce’s nomination came despite widespread criticism from Republicans and business groups who viewed Pearce as having taken an anti-business approach on many issues before the Board. It appears the... Read More

October 8, 2018

Supreme Court Hears Case on Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements for Transportation Workers

October 8, 2018

On October 3, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340. While the case turns on what may appear to be a simple question of statutory interpretation, the outcome could have profound consequences for employers throughout the transportation industry, for hundreds of thousands of independent... Read More

October 1, 2018

California Governor Vetoes Bill Prohibiting Mandatory Arbitration Provisions in Employment Contracts

October 1, 2018

In a last-minute action on the September 30 legislative deadline, California’s Governor vetoed a bill that, among other things, would have imposed restrictions on the use of arbitration agreements for certain employment claims. Under vetoed Assembly Bill 3080, beginning on January 1, 2019, employers in California would have been... Read More