Search form

Supreme Court Hears Argument on Validity of Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements

By Samia M. Kirmani, David E. Nagle, Philip B. Rosen, Daniel D. Schudroff, Jeffrey Schwartz and Collin O’Connor Udell
  • October 3, 2017

The United States Supreme Court heard a one-hour consolidated oral argument in three arbitration cases involving the intersection of the National Labor Relations Act and the Federal Arbitration Act on October 2, 2017. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 16-307; Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No. 16-300. The argument was the first of the Court’s 2017-2018 term.

Arbitration agreements requiring employees to waive their right to bring or participate in a class or collective action have long been enforced pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. In the three cases heard on October 2, the Court is asked to resolve a split among the U.S. Courts of Appeals (Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits) over whether such arbitration agreements violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in “concerted activities” in pursuit of their “mutual aid or protection.” For more information, see our article, Supreme Court to Review Validity of Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements.

The Court’s decision is expected to provide welcome certainty to both employers and employees on the issue of class waivers in arbitration agreements.

During the argument, four justices (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) asked attorney Paul Clement (representing all three employers in the argument) and Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall (representing the U.S. government’s position) questions suggesting it is their view that these types of arbitration agreements are irreconcilable with the NLRA. Conversely, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito asked questions suggesting that they hold the opposite view. National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Richard Griffin argued on behalf of the agency. Justice Anthony Kennedy noted during his questioning of Griffin that employees could still engage in protected concerted activity if they collectively funneled resources and information to a single attorney who could represent each employee in an individually-initiated arbitration proceeding initiated individually. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch did not ask any questions.

While one cannot predict the outcome or its timing with any certainty, a decision is expected in early 2018. 

Jackson Lewis has represented Murphy Oil since the inception of the company’s case and, 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 at the argument.

Jackson Lewis will provide updates on these and other Supreme Court cases.

©2017 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

March 9, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for February 2018

March 9, 2018

The National Labor Relations Board has vacated its decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (Feb. 26, 2018), and restored the Board’s union-friendly joint employer test set forth in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), which Hy-Brand overruled.   The vacated decision came after... Read More

February 22, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for January 2018

February 22, 2018

Management-side labor and employment lawyer John Ring has been nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the vacant seat on the five-member National Labor Relations Board. If confirmed, Ring would replace former-Board Chairman Philip Miscimarra, a Republican, and restore a 3-2 Republican majority to the Board. Miscimarra’s term... Read More

February 9, 2018

Employers Take Note: Labor Board Poised to Reverse Additional Obama-Era Work Rule Interpretations

February 9, 2018

The National Labor Relations Board has taken another giant step toward repudiating the Obama-era Board’s highly restrictive interpretations of work rules, set forth in Lutheran Heritage-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). In Grill Concepts Services, Inc. v. NLRB, Nos. 16-1238, 1287, at the Board’s request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the... Read More