Justices, Divided, Say Employment Contracts Banning Class Actions Are Lawful
"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "egregiously wrong."
May 21, 2018 at 10:17 AM
5 minute read
Updated at 1 p.m. ET
Workplace employment agreements that ban class actions do not violate federal labor laws, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
The justices, in a 5-4 decision, sided with employers and the Trump administration's Justice Department, which last June abandoned the Obama-era support of the National Labor Relations Board's position.
The high court ruling, authored by Neil Gorsuch, came in a trio of cases: NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA (from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit); Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (Seventh Circuit), and Ernst & Young v. Morris (Ninth Circuit).
“The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written,” Gorsuch wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr.
Gorsuch also wrote that the court had to abide by “a congressional command requiring us to enforce, not override, the terms of the arbitration agreements before us.”
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the majority decision “egregiously wrong.” She called on Congress to counter the decision.
“Congressional correction of the court's elevation of the FAA over workers' rights to act in concert is urgently in order,” she wrote. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg's dissent, which she read in part from the bench Monday.
The federal labor board had ruled that bans of class or collective actions ran afoul of the National Labor Relations Act. But the government and employers argued that arbitration agreements containing the bans had to be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act. The labor board's then-general counsel, Richard Griffin, represented the board's position during arguments—the first of the high court's current term.
Dozens of companies in retail, health care and technology, among other industries, were waiting for the Supreme Court's decision. Companies sued over alleged labor violations rooted in arbitration agreements include household names such as AT&T Mobility Service, Uber Technologies Inc., Kmart Corp., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Neiman Marcus.
“This decision confirms that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are lawful,” said Lauren Novak, a partner at Schiff Hardin. “It allows the countless employers that have spent time and effort defending their employment agreements before the National Labor Relations Board and in the appellate courts to breathe a collective sigh of relief.”
Opponents of class action waivers saw meaning in the fact that Gorsuch wrote for the majority. “Make no mistake, working people in this country will be hurt by today's ruling, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will surely consider this an early return on their investment in President Trump's highest-profile judicial nomination, said Elizabeth Wydra, president of of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
A recent memorandum from the NLRB general counsel's office identified 152 cases awaiting the Supreme Court decision. Of those, 52 are on hold in appeals courts around the country.
The issue before the justices took on even wider public scrutiny with the dawning of the #MeToo movement in which a growing number of women spoke out—despite mandatory arbitration agreements—about workplace sexual harassment.
An estimated 25 million nonunion, private employees have arbitration agreements waiving class actions.
The issue before the justices was rooted in a 2012 board ruling that said the homebuilder D.R. Horton's class action waivers violated federal labor law. Agreements that require employees to use arbitration for all work-related disputes interfered with employees' right to engage in concerted activities under the National Labor Relations Act, the board determined. The board said that, when such an agreement violates the act, the Federal Arbitration Act does not require its enforcement.
During arguments on Oct. 2, the employers' counsel, Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement, argued that Supreme Court arbitration decisions offered “a well trod path” to resolving the issue and any tie, he added, goes to the Federal Arbitration Act. He drew support in the argument from Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall.
But the NLRB's Griffin countered that the board's position that class waivers violated labor laws relied on “long-standing precedent.” Workers can agree to arbitrate individually, he said, as long as there is some forum for collective actions. Griffin shared argument time with Daniel Ortiz of the University of Virginia law school, representing one of the employees in the case.
The court's ruling is posted below:
Read more:
This report was updated with additional comment about the ruling.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
5 minute readLawyers, Law Groups Oppose Proposal to Require Court Approval for Amicus Briefs
9th Circuit Judges Weigh if Section 230 Shields Grindr From Defective Design Claims
6th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
Trending Stories
- 1High Verdicts and Venue Rule Land Pa. Courts on Top of 'Judicial Hellhole' List
- 2Austin Appeals Court Rejects Free Speech Defense in Attorney's $2.9M Disgorgement Suit
- 3Home Improvement App Thumbtack Hires Ex-SmileDirectClub Legal Chief
- 4After Fining Investment Firms Billions for Lost Text Messages, Regulators Turn Scrutiny to Audio Recordings
- 5Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250