To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? – That Is the Question

14 May 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Many employers welcomed the Supreme Court's April, 2011 AT & T Mobility v. Concepcion decision with both open arms and a sense of relief - fatigued as they have been with employment-related class actions - and looking forward to a new day of arbitrating statutory claims on an individual (rather than class) basis. That sense of relief is proving short-lived.

Lacking control of the House of Representatives, a legislative response to AT & T Mobility by the Obama administration has been impractical. Enter stage left, however, the Obama National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). Just seven months after the Supreme Court's AT & T Mobility decision, in January 2012, the Board found in D.R. Horton and Michael Cuda, that requiring employees to waive their right to bring employment-related claims on a class basis as a condition of employment violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) – the federal law that it enforces and that protects "concerted" activity by employees. The bottom line – employers who require employees to waive their rights to bring class actions as a condition of employment may be violating federal law.

The Board’s decision in D.R. Horton is now on appeal and whether or not it will survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. On May 1, 2012, however, the General Counsel of the NLRB decided to raise the ante even further. In a case involving 24-Hour Fitness, the national fitness club chain, the NLRB General Counsel decided to issue a complaint alleging that 24-Hour Fitness had violated the NLRA simply by asking employees to arbitrate employment disputes on an individualized basis – even when they were allowed to say no. Though this latest case is just in its infancy, it does signal an aggressive anti-arbitration stance by the Obama Administration. Employers considering arbitration programs should keep this in mind.

The Federal Arbitration Act encourages and enforces private agreements to arbitrate. The National Labor Relations Act protects employees’ engaging in “concerted” activity. Two federal laws of equal force are being interpreted in a manner that seems to be at loggerheads – and probably will remain so absent legislative or judicial intervention.

Trial and class action lawyers representing employees view arbitration as a mortal threat to their livelihoods. Business sees arbitration as a means to avoid ruinous litigation expenses and manage risk in its favor. What to do in the meantime? Employers that had hoped that the AT & T Mobility decision might prove an instant panacea for what ails them may have to wait a little longer while the smoke clears in the ongoing battle between various interest groups over arbitration.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services