5th Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Position on Class/Collective Action Waivers

05 December 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Carrie Hoffman

On December 3, 2013, in a landmark decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Boardrejected the argument that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) banned class and collective action waivers in employment arbitration agreements.  This decision overturned the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) highly publicized, and highly controversial, D.R. Horton decision.  In doing so, the Fifth Circuit paved the way for employers to reconsider prior policies and include such waivers in their arbitration agreements with employees.

The Fifth Circuit noted that it was following the lead of the Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits which “suggested or expressly stated” that they would not follow the NLRB’s rationale in D.R. Horton.  With that in mind, the Fifth Circuit held that D.R. Horton’s arbitration agreement must be enforced according to its terms. 

In reaching these conclusions, the Fifth Circuit agreed with “numerous courts” that have concluded that there “is no substantive right to proceed collectively under the FLSA,” which was directly at issue in the underlying dispute between D.R. Horton and its employees, or under “various [other] employment-related statutory frameworks.”  It also noted that the NLRA was enacted well before the enactment of the class action procedures of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or the collective action provisions of the FLSA.  That is, the Fifth Circuit was not persuaded that there was an “inherent conflict” between the NLRA and the FAA when the NLRA was initially enacted in 1935—and later reenacted in 1947—before the class or collective action procedures even existed.  In partially overturning the NLRB’s decision in D.R. Horton, the Fifth Circuit first noted that while the NLRB is given deference when it interprets a statute under its purview, “[d]eference to the Board ‘cannot be allowed to slip into a judicial inertia which results in the unauthorized assumption . . . of major policy decisions properly made by Congress.’”  Specifically, arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), unless the FAA’s “savings clause” invalidates the arbitration agreement or a “contrary congressional command” precludes the application of the FAA.  The Fifth Circuit found that neither of these two exceptions applied.

In a separate issue, the Fifth Circuit enforced the NLRB’s order to the extent it held that the language of D.R. Horton’s arbitration agreement violated the NLRA.  With respect to that issue, the Fifth Circuit noted that the language of D.R. Horton’s arbitration agreement could be “misconstrued” as prohibiting an employee’s filing of an unfair labor practice charge.  For example, the Fifth Circuit specifically found that the acknowledgment in the arbitration agreement could be misconstrued to the extent it stated that the employee “knowingly and voluntarily waiv[es] the right to file a lawsuit or other civil proceeding relating to Employee’s employment with [D.R. Horton] as well as the right to resolve employment-related disputes in a proceeding before a judge or jury.”  That is, arbitration agreements cannot prohibit the filing of unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.  And even if the arbitration agreement does not expressly prohibit such filings, it may still violate the NLRA if it can be “reasonably constru[ed]” to do so. 

In light of this ruling, employers in Texas should reevaluate and reconsider their arbitration agreements or arbitration policies.  Specifically, because the Fifth Circuit has upheld class and collective action waivers by overturning the NLRB’s decision in D.R. Horton, employers should consider whether to adopt such waivers in their existing agreements or include them in agreements they plan to use in the future.  Employers should likewise consider how to tweak existing arbitration agreements or revise arbitration agreements for future use by ensuring that the language cannot be misconstrued as a prohibition on the filing of unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.  In sum, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in D.R. Horton creates a path for employers to follow in drafting and implementing their arbitration agreements.”

By Carrie B. Hoffman and Taylor E. White

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

Insights