Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: Proceed with Caution

28 November 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Krista M. Cabrera

Class action waivers in arbitration agreements exist in a legal gray zone, with the federal appellate courts split on their enforceability. Many employers believe that by forcing employees who sue them to do so only individually, they can avoid the prospect of very large judgements. The Ninth Circuit and Seventh Circuit have held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and therefore are unenforceable. Three other federal circuit courts  (the Fifth, Second, and Eighth) held that such waivers do not violate the NLRA. Not surprisingly, the parties to two lawsuits are currently vying to have this issue resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. As many readers may know, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is not automatically accepted by the Court

The newest chapter in this saga began with a Ninth Circuit appeal, in Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., involving Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) arbitration agreement. Uber’s business model, as we have previously discussed, has been at the heart of multiple lawsuits in the fight over whether drivers should be classified as independent contractors or employees. Since 2013, Uber has required that drivers sign agreements containing an arbitration clause that prohibits drivers from participating in a class or collective action. The arbitration clause, compelling drivers to arbitrate all disputes with the company individually, has been revised several times but mandatory arbitration and a class or collective action waiver survived those revisions. In Mohamed, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the mandatory arbitration provision in Uber’s driver agreements was not unconscionable as written, and that the parties had delegated the decision on arbitrability to the arbitrator. In a footnote, the court explained that an “opt out” provision in Uber’s arbitration clause means that Uber drivers are not required to agree to a class action waiver as a condition of employment, and thus the clause does not violate the NLRA.

Employers, particularly those in the Seventh  and Ninth Circuits, face uncertainty regarding the enforceability of class waivers in arbitration agreements. In light of the Mohamed case, a clear opt-out provision may provide a buffer against a determination that such agreements violate the NLRA. Employers should carefully watch to see if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to resolve this issue. In the meantime, employers should consult counsel before adopting or revising an arbitration agreement that contains a class action waiver.

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