Trump Department of Justice Reverses Course on Class Action Waivers

24 July 2017 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) changed its position with respect to the enforceability of class action waivers in the labor and employment context. The move came via the DOJ’s filing of an amicus curiae brief in three consolidated cases pending before the Supreme Court (National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300)  The Court’s decision in these cases – which were granted review in January 2017 – is expected to resolve a circuit split over whether class action waivers included in employee arbitration agreements, constitute illegal waivers of rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  The Seventh and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that such waivers violate Section 7 of the NLRA, while the Second, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have upheld the validity of class action waivers in the employment context.

In September 2016, the DOJ under the Obama Administration, on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, aligning itself with the NLRB and its position that class action waivers are unenforceable and violate the NLRA.   Less than a year later, the Trump Administration’s DOJ has completely abandoned its predecessor’s position.  In its June 16th amicus brief, the DOJ argued that the Federal Arbitration Act mandates the enforcement of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers, unless overridden by a contrary congressional command or unless the waiver would deprive a plaintiff of substantive rights.  The DOJ’s current position is that enforcing class action waivers does not result in a surrender of substantive Section 7 rights, which are limited to union organizing and collective bargaining.  According to the DOJ, those particular rights are in no way impacted by the procedural limitation of precluding individuals from joining together as a class to bring suit against their employers.

Notably, the DOJ explicitly addressed its revised stance, stating that while it had “previously filed a petition… on behalf of the NLRB, defending the Board’s view” concerning the enforceability of class action waivers, “[a]fter the change in administration, the [DOJ] reconsidered the issue and has reached the opposite conclusion.” As a result of this new position, the NLRB is no longer represented by the U.S. Solicitor General in the matter, and is now representing itself in the three consolidated cases.

The impact of this ideological shift on the cases before the Supreme Court is unclear. In a case involving statutory interpretation – here the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)versus the scope of Section 7 of the NLRA – congressional intent and the plain language of the competing statutes, rather than a DOJ opinion, will likely drive the ultimate resolution of these cases.  All employers who use or are considering using class action waivers should keep a close eye on this case.  We will provide an update once the Supreme Court rules on this matter.



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