Class Action Waivers, Class Actions, Employment Litigation, Uncategorized

Your Collective Action Waiver May Not Survive in a Vacuum: 6th Circuit Says Arbitration Was Key to Enforcing Waiver of FLSA Claims

CongressThe Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently noted in Killion et al. v. KeHE Distrib., LLC, Nos. 13-3357/4340 (6th Cir. Jul. 30, 2014) that it was the first appellate court to tackle head on the question of whether a collective action waiver in the context of Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims can survive in the absence of an agreement requiring individual arbitration.  The collective action waiver before the Sixth Circuit was included in a severance agreement signed by several of the defendant’s employees upon termination, and required that they not consent to be part of a class or collective action related to their employment or termination of their employment.  The severance agreement did not require arbitration.  Relying on its precedent in Boaz v. FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc., 725 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2013), the court held that the collective action waiver was invalid because it limited the employees’ rights under the FLSA.

Instead of following recent cases that have upheld collective action waivers in reliance on U.S. Supreme Court precedent such as American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304, 2309 (2013), the Sixth Circuit relied on Boaz in which it struck an employment agreement that limited the time period for bringing FLSA actions to six months.  The Sixth Circuit explained “Boaz is based on the general principle of striking down restrictions on the employees’ FLSA rights that would have the effect of granting their employer an unfair advantage over its competitors.”  Obtaining a waiver of rights under the FLSA is one such advantage.  Several Circuit Courts of Appeals previously had validated the enforceability of class and collective arbitration waivers in FLSA actions, finding that the FLSA does not grant employees a non-waivable, substantive right to bring a collective action. Yet, the Sixth Circuit stressed in Killion, “[c]rucially…the respective waiver agreements in all of [those] cases included provisions subjecting the employees to arbitration.”

The Supreme Court rejected the notion that class waivers can be invalidated because requiring individual arbitration of small claims would discourage plaintiffs from bringing claims, yet the Sixth Circuit reasoned in Killion that requiring individual litigation “grants the employer the same type of competitive advantage as did shortening the limitations period to bring a claim in Boaz. And in cases where each individual claim is small, having to litigate on an individual basis would likely discourage the employee from bringing a claim for overtime wages.”  Why did the Sixth Circuit reach its conclusion?  Simply stated: “Because no arbitration agreement is present in the case before us, we find no countervailing federal policy that outweighs the policy articulated in the FLSA.” In the Sixth Circuit’s view, without the force of the Federal Arbitration Act behind it, the waiver must fail.  We will keep watching to see whether other Circuit Courts follow the Sixth Circuit down this path and if the path ultimately leads class waivers back to the Supreme Court.

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)