Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Class Actions, Employment Litigation

D.R. Horton Still Alive: NLRB Judge Says Employer’s Intent to Compel Employees to Waive Class Claims Renders Arbitration Clause Unenforceable Even When there is No Explicit Waiver

Although the Circuit Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue currently stand united in the view that class arbitration waivers in individual employment contracts do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ruling to the contrary in D. R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, Case 12–CA–25764, 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012) continues to drive the invalidation of arbitration agreements in employment agreements.  On January 17, 2014, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge relied on the NLRB’s decision in D.R. Horton to find in Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc. and Cunningham, case 21–CA–102332, that the arbitration clause in an individual employment agreement is unenforceable even though there was no express class action/arbitration waiver in the arbitration clause at issue and even though the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the NLRB’s ruling in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 12-60031 (5th Cir.  Dec. 3, 2013), revised December 4, 2013.  See our previous post: “Loath to create a circuit split,” the Fifth Circuit Overturns NLRB’s D.R. Horton Ruling that Class Arbitration Waivers in Individual Employment Contracts Violate the NLRA.  The Leslie’s Poolmart ALJ held that, despite Circuit Court rulings to the contrary, the NLRB’s ruling in D.R. Horton is binding unless and until reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The ALJ found the arbitration agreement and the defendant company’s motion to compel arbitration violations of the NLRA and ordered the company to cease and desist from maintaining and seeking court action to enforce “a mandatory and binding arbitration policy that, either expressly or impliedly, or by Respondent’s actions or practice, waives the right to maintain class or collective actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial.”

NLRB Precedent Remains Controlling.  The ALJ acknowledged that U.S. Supreme Court precedent has exhibited deference to arbitration agreements in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act’s policy favoring arbitration.  However, the ALJ asserted that she must follow current NLRB precedent in the absence of Supreme Court precedent that reverses the NLRB, citing to NLRB decisions, including Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 749 fn. 14 (1984) (“We emphasize that it is a judge’s duty to apply established Board precedent which the Supreme Court has not reversed. It is for the Board, not the judge, to determine whether precedent should be varied”) (citation omitted).”

The Effect of the Agreement is Determinative Despite Silence on Class or Collective Actions.  The arbitration agreement in Leslie’s Poolmart did not contain an explicit waiver of class or collective actions.  However, the ALJ held that the arbitration agreement’s silence regarding class or collective actions was not determinative, given the defendant company’s attempt to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims and to dismiss the class claims.  The ALJ reasoned: “While the arbitration agreement does not, on its face, prohibit collective or class action, it has the effect of doing so as evinced when Respondent, in moving to compel arbitration of his claims, sought to preclude Cunningham from filing a class action lawsuit and maintained that ‘arbitration is the elected and required forum for resolving [Charging Party’s] individual claims.’”  The ALJ found the Leslie’s Poolmart arbitration agreement indistinguishable from that in D.R. Horton, because “in practice, Respondent closed the avenue to pursue collective and/or classwide litigation when it sought to limit Cunningham and other similarly situated employees to arbitration of their individual claims.”

The Company’s Motion to Compel Violates the NLRA.  The ALJ found that the company’s filing of a motion to compel arbitration violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA because the company’s “actions in enforcing its mandatory arbitration agreement (by filing a motion to compel in district court) interferes, restrains, or coerces Cunningham and similarly situated employees from exercising their substantive rights to file classwide litigation.”  The ALJ rejected the company’s argument that filing the motion to compel is a “constitutionally protected petitioning of the government under the First Amendment.”

Moving Forward.  Decisions by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge are appealable to the NLRB Board.  As such, the ALJ’s decision in this matter may be overturned by the NLRB Board on appeal, in accordance with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in D.R. Horton.  Board decisions are appealable to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and then the U.S. Supreme Court.  As the Fifth Circuit noted in its D.R. Horton decision:

Every one of our sister circuits to consider the issue has either suggested or expressly stated that they would not defer to the NLRB’s rationale, and held arbitration agreements containing class waivers enforceable. See Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, – F.3d — , No. 11-17530, 2013 WL 4437601, at *2 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013); Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 726 F.3d 290, 297-98 n.8 (2d Cir. 2013); Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050, 1055 (8th Cir. 2013).

Therefore, the viability of the ALJ’s decision in Leslie’s Poolmart is questionable.  That plaintiffs will continue to challenge the enforceability of arbitration agreements is a guarantee.  We will keep you posted on developments.

Tony Lathrop

About Tony Lathrop

Tony Lathrop brings experience and a high level of analytical ability, professional credibility and creativity to handling litigation matters. He rigorously represents his clients' interests in a diverse range of claims and actions. A certified mediator, Mr. Lathrop has extensive experience representing business clients in mediation. His service to the legal profession in North Carolina has allowed him to develop relationships across the state that benefit the firm's clients.

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

Welcome to the MVA Litigation Blog!

In an increasingly globalized and regulated business environment, companies are faced with ever-changing and complicated litigation and regulatory challenges. The Moore & Van Allen Litigation Blog provides cutting-edge information regarding developments in federal, North Carolina State, and international litigation, as well as in arbitration, regulatory enforcement, and related business practices.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Tony Lathrop:  View Tony Lathrop's Bio View Tony Lathrop's LinkedIn profileFollow @TonyLathropLaw on Twitter

  • Subscribe to Blog Via Email

    Follow MVA

    Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

    Blog Topics

    Archives


    Our Litigation Practice

    Headquartered in the banking and energy hub of Charlotte, North Carolina, Moore & Van Allen has assembled a team of litigators with the intellectual acuity, knowledge of complex commercial transactions, and breadth of experience necessary to successfully serve our clients in all aspects of sophisticated business litigation and white collar criminal defense.

    Guided by trial lawyers with years of substantial state, federal, and international experience, our team addresses the diverse challenges facing our clients, ranging from general commercial litigation and matters involving employment, antitrust, trust & estate, securities or corporate governance issues, to class actions, regulatory enforcement proceedings, and government & internal investigations.

    We represent large Fortune 500® corporations, as well as start-ups, in banking, securities, healthcare, manufacturing, construction, energy, and other industries. We work closely with our clients to develop strategies to meet their business needs, whether that includes taking a case to trial or appeal, arbitrating a case or finding an alternative means of resolution. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA Litigation Team.

    Disclaimer

    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.


    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)