In D.R. Horton,1 an unprecedented, sweeping ruling affecting both unionized and nonunion employers alike, a two-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that an arbitration agreement that contains a class and collective action waiver clause—precluding employees from filing employment class or collective actions in court or arbitration—violates §8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Procedural History

D.R. Horton, a home builder with locations in 20 states, began in January 2006 to require new and current employees to sign a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement (MAA) as a condition of employment. The MAA did not expressly exempt administrative charges filed with the NLRB or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, the MAA provided that the arbitrator did not have the authority “to fashion a proceeding as a class or collective action or to award relief to a group or class of employees in one arbitration proceeding.”2