As the Class Waiver Turns — The Latest in the D.R. Horton Saga

09 December 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Tuesday, December 3, 2013, marked the latest turn in the D.R. Horton saga. On Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (the Board’s) January 3, 2012 ruling in the D.R. Horton case, which had found that D.R. Horton’s Mutual Arbitration Agreement was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because it prohibited employees from participating in class or collective actions against the company. While the Fifth Circuit decision can be viewed as a major victory for employers, because the Board has national jurisdiction, the recent ruling need not determine its view on class and collective waivers in jurisdictions outside the Fifth Circuit (which includes Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi).

Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit is just the latest court to reject the Board’s D.R. Horton decision. Indeed, other federal appellate courts have found the analysis by the Board to be less than persuasive when it comes to upsetting the apple cart arguably settled upon the road by the Supreme Court  in its 2011 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion decision. In Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement requiring customers to arbitrate all claims, but precluding the same customers from joining such claims as a class action, was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act  (FAA). In the recent Fifth Circuit case, the Board tried to distinguish the Supreme Court holding by noting that it was only concerned with agreements between employers and employees and that the NLRA specifically demanded that employees be allowed to join in a collective action to enforce their rights protected by the Act. The attempt was rejected.

The Fifth Circuit first found that, as the Supreme Court has held, there is no substantive right to a class or collective action. Rather, class and collective actions are procedural processes that are inconsistent with the goal of simple, efficient, and cost-effective arbitration, which is also the goal furthered by the FAA. Second, the court noted that the NLRA does not get to ride roughshod over the FAA unless there is a clear congressional mandate or command to that effect, and, there is no such mandate in the NLRA.

Bottom line – the federal courts continue to indicate that employers may require employees to pursue employment claims via arbitration (though there must be an exception for pursuing rights under the NLRA before the Board as well), and direct that such arbitrations can be limited to individual pursuits (i.e., no class or collective actions). And, while the “new” Board is not expected to give up lightly, and may, in fact, continue to pursue its policy that any employer who precludes class or collective arbitration commits an unfair labor practice, the tide in this ocean has definitely been enhanced and employers can feel fairly confident that, if drafted correctly, their arbitration agreements can likely eliminate much class and collective action exposure. The potential flipside however, coming through a question that has not been answered in this new age of arbitration and the elimination of class/collective actions, is what is the impact when confronted by a plaintiffs’ law firm with the wherewithal and patience to file and pursue hundreds or thousands of arbitrations on behalf of individual employees? Would costs and exposure really be reduced, or might the costs be enhanced?

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


Ten Minute Interview: Private Market Investments
07 December 2022
CMS Extends Delayed Enforcement of the Good Faith Estimate
07 December 2022
Health Care Law Today
Tech M&A Outlook: What Types of Deals are Getting Done?
07 December 2022
Foley Ignite
Foley Automotive Report
06 December 2022
Dashboard Insights
What You Should Know About Payor/Provider Convergence
25-26 January 2023
Los Angeles, CA
ATA EDGE2022 Policy Conference | American Telemedicine Association
7-9 December 2022
Washington, D.C.
CLE Weeks
5-16 December 2022
Milwaukee, WI
Foley Sponsors Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year® Program
1 December 2021 - 30 November 2022
Michigan and Northwest Ohio Region