loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

NLRB Continues To Invalidate Class Action Waivers In Mandatory Arbitration Programs


While federal courts around the country – including the U.S. Supreme Court – continue to generally uphold “class action waivers” in mandatory arbitration programs, the NLRB continues to go the other way and find that such provisions violate the NLRA. Employers who have arbitration programs that require employees to have claims against companies heard in front of arbitrators rather than courts often include “class action waivers” in their programs. The waivers prohibit employees from forming class actions against the companies by requiring claims to be brought only an individual basis. In 2012, the NLRB issued its infamous decision in D.R. Horton Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184, (2012) that ruled class action waivers violate the NLRA because they impede “concerted activity.” That is, the NLRB views the potential formation of class actions contesting alleged unlawful practices as “group activity” protected by the NLRA. The Fifth Circuit subsequently denied enforcement of DR Horton and held the NLRA does not work to invalidate class action waivers. Not to be deterred, the NLRB issued a decision on October 28, 2014, in Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 N.L.R.B. No. 72 (2014) in which it found an employer violated the NLRA by having an arbitration program that contains a class action waiver. The Board noted it disagreed with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis and reaffirmed it commitment to invalidating class action waivers. The US Supreme Court is likely to weigh in at some point, as it has issued a series of rulings in recent years generally upholding various aspects of mandatory arbitration programs – including class action waivers (although it has not yet tackled the analysis under the framework of the NLRA). Until then the NLRB will seemingly continue to find class action waivers to be unlawful even if federal courts of appeal disagree. Accordingly, companies with class action waivers should take this into consideration when evaluating the “pros and cons” of maintaining them. A copy of the decision can be found here.


LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

RELATED ARTICLES

Cough it Up! Company Forced to Give Union Complete Copy Of Third-Party Agreement

June 11, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Thin Skin? Discharge of Employee for Criticizing Executive’s Salary Was Unlawful

May 31, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Changes Coming: NLRB Considers Rulemaking on Ambush Elections and More

May 24, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Are Uber Drivers Employees?

May 15, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.