The National Law Journal with DC News from Legal Times

30 Day Free Trial

National News
Washington News
  • Home
  • Legal Business
  • Law Schools
  • Columns
  • Verdicts
  • Opinion
  • Video Center
  • Blog

NLJ Home > News > More fallout from ruling on recess appointments as D.R. Horton challenges decision on class action waivers

Font Size: increase font decrease font

More fallout from ruling on recess appointments as D.R. Horton challenges decision on class action waivers

By Claire Zillman / The Litigation Daily All Articles 

The National Law Journal

January 30, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •       Comments (1)
 
Ogletree Deakins' Ron Chapman Jr.

Ogletree Deakins' Ron Chapman Jr.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit shook up both Washington and Wall Street last Friday, when it invalidated President Obama's January 2012 recess appointments of three members of the National Labor Relations Board. The decision also threatened Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, since Cordray was appointed at the same time as the NLRB members, and it raised serious questions about the CFPB's ability to police the financial industry without a director at its helm.

Now D.R. Horton, a company that's been tangling with the NLRB in a key case dealing with employer arbitration agreements, wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to extend the D.C. Circuit's reasoning to another NLRB member who was appointed nearly three years ago. If the Fifth Circuit agrees, it could pose major problems for the NLRB, including undermining the agency's year-old holding in the Horton case that companies can't compel employees to waive their rights to collective action through private arbitration agreements.

On Tuesday Horton counsel Ron Chapman Jr. of Ogletree Deakins filed a letter with the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the appointment of NLRB member Craig Becker, whom Obama named to the five-seat board with a recess appointment on March 27, 2010, was also invalid under the D.C. Circuit's ruling Friday in Noel Canning v. NLRB. In that case, the D.C. Circuit found that the president's three recess appointments on Jan. 4, 2012 were invalid because the Senate was still meeting in "pro forma" sessions at the time, and because the board vacancies didn't arise during an official recess. According to Tuesday's letter, the same situation applied in March 2010, when Becker was named via recess appointment to a stint on the NLRB's board that ran through Jan. 3, 2012.

"Just like the situation in Noel Canning, the vacancy Mr. Becker filled did not arise during the Senate's recess, nor did the president appoint him during that recess," Chapman wrote.

A finding that Becker's appointment was invalid could throw decisions from Becker's 21-month tenure into legal limbo. Specifically, Chapman told us Wednesday, it would affect all NLRB decisions issued when the board had only three members during Becker's term, and any decisions where Becker's vote was necessary for a majority.

Most significantly for D.R. Horton and other employers, such a finding could force the NLRB to scrap its Jan. 3, 2012 ruling curtailing class action waivers in its case against Horton. As we've reported, the NLRB's decision in the Horton case, which the company immediately appealed to the Fifth Circuit, was widely seen as clashing with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which made it easier for defendants to enforce arbitration agreements with would-be class action plaintiffs.

Industry groups and employee advocates have filed a flurry of amicus briefs in Horton's appeal before the Fifth Circuit. Ogletree's Chapman told us in an email Wednesday that the appellate court will consider Tuesday's letter during oral arguments on Feb. 5.

NLRB public affairs director Nancy Cleeland didn't respond to a request for comment.



Subscribe to The National Law Journal

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 

Reader Comments

  • ponsoldt

    January 31, 2013 12:03 PM

    by "the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit" you actually mean a couple of republican ideologue politicians who happen to have been appointed to the federal bench after signfiicant litmus-testing, right? so why don't you say it?

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Post a Comment »
Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • AT&T Mobility
  • Fifth Circuit
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • National Labor Relations Board
  • U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Supreme Court of the United States

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Law for Laymen
    •      
  2. The Calculus of University Presidents
    •      
  3. Law School Offers A Second Chance for Rejected Students
    •      
  4. IRS Official May Have Unwittingly Lost Right to Silence
    •      
  5. Suspension for Spurned Attorney Who Waged Vendetta
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Hiring Interns? Be Sure to Do It Right

ACC Weighs in on Arizona's In-House Pro Bono Rules

Ex-Dewey Partners Face New Foe in Firm's Bankruptcy

S&C Adds Linklaters Restructuring Partner in London
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Enron Sandbox Stirs Up Private Data, Again

LegalTech West Coast Wraps Up With Ethics, VC News

In Tricky Prosecutions, Judges Play Peacemakers

Ropers Majeski Tries to Re-Invent Itself
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Lawsuit Names Missing Fla. Attorney for Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Summer Programs Still in a Drought

Lawyer Not Covered for Alleged Malpractice at Prior Firm
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Firm Takes Another Hit in Bid for 'Unconscionable' Fees

New York's Martin Act Faces Test in Challenge to 2005 Case

Castille Testifies in Favor of 'Civil Gideon' Funding

Workers' Comp Judges Can't Fight Rescinded Raise
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Advising Clients on Weather and the Workplace
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Texas Sues BP, Others Over Deepwater Oil Spill Disaster
  •      
    • Subscription Required

'Follow That Escapee!'

Judge Who Tossed Defense Counsel Accused of 'Partiality'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

 
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media