Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Class Actions, Class Arbitration, Employment Litigation

NLRB Judge Finds Employment Contract’s Arbitration Clause Invalid Although No Explicit “Waiver” of Class Actions

24258913Last week, a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Administrative Law Judge reiterated the agency’s position that employers who require the arbitration of grievances by employees on an individual basis violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) by precluding protected concerted activity of the class and collective action mechanisms.  We have seen the NLRB strike down explicit class action waivers in employment contracts in its decisions since D.R. Horton (2012) and Murphy Oil (2014), contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Concepcion line of cases that have validated the enforceability of class actions waivers in a variety of contexts.  The recent NLRB Administrative Law Judge decision in Employers Resource and Talina Torres, (Case 31–CA–097189) invalidated an arbitration provision that did not explicitly preclude class or collective actions on the grounds that the employer successfully used the provision to compel individual arbitration of a wage and hour class action filed in state court by a former employee.   The employer successfully argued in state court that (a) the arbitration provision required arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims and (b) the U.S. Supreme Court’s Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) decision prohibited the imposition of class arbitration procedures given the agreement’s silence on the issue.  Although successful in state court, these arguments ran the employer into a brick wall at the NLRB.  In the NLRB’s view “a rule that does not expressly restrict protected activity is nevertheless unlawful if it has been applied to restrict protected activity.”  Accordingly, the NLRB Administrative Law Judge found the case was controlled by D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil.  The Administrative Law Judge also rejected the employer’s attempt to remove the employee’s conduct from the scope of protected concerted activity on the basis that she was the sole named plaintiff and had not discussed the case with any other potential class members.  The NLRB Board held in D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil that filing a class or collective action seeks to initiate or induce group activity and is therefore protected.

Employers should continue to expect challenges by employees, given the NLRB’s pro-employee view of the class waiver issue and Administrative Law Judges must follow Board precedent that has not been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Employers Resource Administrative Law Judge ordered the employer to modify its arbitration agreement, to pay plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees associated with the motion to compel arbitration, and to notify the court that it no longer objected to the class action based on the arbitration agreement.  But, federal circuit court decisions to date suggest that employers will fare better on appeal with respect to class action waivers.  Decisions by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge are appealable to the NLRB Board, and Board decisions are appealable to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to hear this issue.  However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the NLRB’s D.R. Horton decision regarding class waivers, in line with the statements and suggestions of other Circuit Courts that had considered the issue.  Currently, the NLRB’s Murphy Oil decision is pending review by the Fifth Circuit and likely faces a fate similar to D.R. Horton.  It is worth noting, however, that the Fifth Circuit did require the employer in D.R. Horton to modify its arbitration agreement to clarify that the agreement did not limit the employees’ right to file administrative charges with the NLRB.  While class action waivers ultimately may survive court scrutiny and limit an employer’s exposure to class procedures in arbitration and in court, employers should bear in mind that they will meet resistance from the courts if arbitration agreements eliminate, or can be misinterpreted as eliminating, their employees’ access to the NLRB administrative process.

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.


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


    Blog Topics


    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.


    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)