Supreme Court Ends the Debate and Upholds Class Action Waivers

21 May 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Christopher G. Ward

Welcome news for many employers rolled out of Washington, D.C. earlier this morning. The Supreme Court has ended a long-running debate over the enforceability of arbitration agreements with class action waivers in the employment context, particularly as applied to the wage and hour class action litigation. In short, such waivers are enforceable and do not violate the National Labor Relations Act.

Today’s long-anticipated ruling has its genesis in the 2011 opinion AT&T Mobility Servs. v. Concepcion, where the Court held that individual arbitration provisions in consumer contracts were enforceable and precluded parties to such contracts from bringing or participating in class action litigation. In the wake of Concepcion, some employers adopted arbitration agreements with class action waivers as potential insulation against wage and hour class action litigation. A historic legal battle touched off from there.

Within a year, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) concluded (in apparent contradiction to an NLRB General Counsel guidance memo issued two years earlier) that class action waivers violated protections on “concerted activity” found in the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Multiple federal appellate courts then rejected and refused to enforce NLRB decisions finding such class action waivers unlawful, yet the NLRB refused to follow the direction from the federal courts and continued finding such waivers violated the NLRA. This standoff continued for several years, with even the California Supreme Court rejecting the NLRB’s position and finding class action claims under the California Labor Code could be precluded by individual arbitration requirements, but “representative” claims under the state’s “Private Attorneys General Act” could not. More recently, a handful of federal district courts and ultimately three federal appellate courts adopted the NLRB’s position –  setting the stage for Supreme Court showdown.

As many expected, the Court split 5-4 along perceived ideological lines, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch joined by likely swing vote Justice Kennedy to form a five-justice majority. Writing for that majority, Justice Gorsuch suggested that there is little legal basis to conclude that the NLRA overrides the federal policy in favor of arbitration as set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act, such that arguments to the contrary ultimately depend primarily upon policy considerations, not statutory and case law authority.  As part of this argument, Justice Gorsuch pointed out that for over 70 years the NLRB had no quarrel with individual arbitration agreements and argued that the NLRA’s protections on “concerted activity” can only be understood in the context of traditional labor relations matters (such as union organizing and collective bargaining), not civil litigation of claims arising under statutes other than the NLRA. The Court also rejected the argument that courts owe deference to the NLRB’s view of things, pointing out that courts do not and should not grant deference to an agency’s interpretation of a federal law outside its sphere of responsibility. Throughout the opinion, Justice Gorsuch repeatedly argued that the Court was not endorsing policies in favor of class action waivers, and even acknowledged the policy arguments against them, while still asserting that the Court’s decision faithfully followed the applicable statutes and Supreme Court precedent.

Perhaps the most striking thing from the Court’s majority opinion – other than its critically important outcome – is the strength the majority again assigned to the Federal Arbitration Act and the continuing implications that may have on class action and quasi-class action litigation. As it has consistently done in previous decisions, the Supreme Court asserted that courts must enforce arbitration agreements to which private parties have agreed unless federal law explicitly excludes claims from the ambit of arbitration or unless very limited defenses to contract formation apply. Such sweeping language seems to create a likelihood that the majority’s language will touch off new battles, such as whether California can exclude from individual arbitration so-called “representative” claims under its Private Attorneys General Act statute when the hurdle to arbitration is a state’s policy decision, not a defect in the formation of the arbitration agreement itself. It also bears watching whether class action waivers will become a significant enough political issue that Congressional action could occur and new laws passed depending on the outcome of future election cycles.

For now however, employers that have already adopted dispute resolution agreements with class action waivers should welcome the successful end to this long-running legal battle. And for employers that have yet to adopt such agreements, the waivers can provide some very substantial pros and notable cons. Both the pros and cons of an arbitration program with a class action waiver should be carefully considered before charging forward with implementation in response to today’s Supreme Court ruling. Your friendly neighborhood Foley & Lardner LLP labor and employment attorney can help.

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

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.