Search form

Supreme Court to Review Validity of Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements

By Samia M. Kirmani, Jeffrey Schwartz, Collin O’Connor Udell and David E. Nagle
  • January 13, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Supreme Court’s action promises the much-anticipated resolution of the circuit split on the issue.

The Court on January 13, 2017, granted certiorari in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA (No. 16-307), Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (No. 16-285), and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris (No. 16-300), consolidating them for oral argument.

Background

Arbitration agreements that require employees to pursue claims in arbitration, rather than in court, have long been enforced pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Due to a series of Supreme Court decisions, employers increasingly have included class and collective action waivers in such agreements. However, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has taken the position that employers violate the NLRA when they make such waivers in arbitration agreements a condition of employment.

Disagreeing with the NLRB, in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit generally held class and collective action waivers do not violate the NLRA. Since then, the Second and Eighth Circuits have followed the Fifth Circuit and enforced arbitration agreements requiring employees to submit their employment claims to individual arbitration. (For more on D.R. Horton, see our article, Employer’s Mandatory Arbitration Clause Waiving Employee’s Right to Sue in Court Upheld.)

On May 26, 2016, the Seventh Circuit created 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. More recently, in Morris v. Ernst & Young, No. 13-16599, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15638 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 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.)

In September 2016, the employers in Epic Systems Corp. and Ernst & Young and the NLRB in Murphy Oil each petitioned the Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all. Reflecting the uncertainty on the issue, cases presenting this same question currently are before several other courts of appeals.

Analysis of Supreme Court’s Action

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 that the Court granted certiorari and consolidated these cases. In the past, critical Supreme Court’s decisions regarding 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. By the time the Court decides the issue, Justice Scalia’s replacement likely will be on the Court.

The petitioners’ merits briefs likely will be due within 45 days of the Court’s grant of certiorari, the respondents’ briefs likely will be due 30 days after the petitioners’ briefs are filed, and reply briefs likely will be due 30 days thereafter. Still, the briefing schedule may be slowed, as many amicus briefs are anticipated.

Until the Supreme Court decides the matter one way or another, employers with such waivers will continue to face an uncertain landscape. We will keep you informed on the issue. Meanwhile, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with questions about drafting or enforcing arbitration agreements.

©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

May 16, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for April 2018

May 16, 2018

The U.S. Senate confirmed John Ring’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on April 11. Shortly thereafter, President Donald Trump named Ring as Board Chairman. Ring was sworn in as Chairman on April 16, replacing Republican Marvin Kaplan in that role. Trump nominated Ring, a management-side labor and employment... Read More

May 15, 2018

union kNOw – May 2018

May 15, 2018

The Don’ts of IBEW Local’s Dues Policy IBEW Local 58’s policy requiring union members who want to resign their membership in the union or opt out of dues deduction to appear in person at Local 58’s union hall with a picture identification and a written request indicating the member’s intent violates the National Labor Relations Act,... Read More

May 1, 2018

Class Action Trends Report Spring 2018

May 1, 2018

Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims. This issue covers the following topics: Computer-age class action traps #MeToo: A viral movement, a wave of claims The ADA applies in cyberspace, too Online job assessments... Read More