Insights
Publications

Supreme Court Rules That Employees Can Waive Class Action Rights Through Arbitration Agreements

5/25/2018 Articles

On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. 584 U.S. ___ (Dkts. 16-285, 16-300, 16-307).

History

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed an employer’s ability to enforce arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  But the U.S. Circuit Courts have split over whether employers could insist in those agreements that such arbitrations must be brought individually and not as class actions.  Some courts, including the Ninth Circuit, had held that class waiver provisions were prohibited by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects employees’ right “to engage in…concerted  activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection.” 

The Decision 

In 2017, the U. S. Supreme Court heard arguments for the following three cases: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.  All three cases presented the issue of whether class waivers were enforceable under the FAA.  For instance, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris involved a junior accountant who had entered an arbitration agreement which included a class waiver but who then filed a misclassification class action in federal court, alleging that the class waiver was unenforceable. 

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision answering the question underlying all three cases.  Justice Gorsuch authored the majority decision, finding that the FAA’s saving clause (which excepts the enforcement of illegal agreements) did not preclude enforceability of class action waivers.  In part, the Court found that the saving clause’s general bases for rendering an agreement illegal only encompass defenses that could apply to any contract and do not include the argument that class waivers are illegal under the NLRA.  Moreover, the majority concluded that such an expansive interpretation of the saving clause would undermine the effect of the FAA overall.  The majority also opined that the language of NLRA Section 7 did not encompass protection for class and collective legal actions but rather was intended to protect the exercise of “the right to free association in the workplace.”  Epic, 584 U.S. ____, (Dkts. 16-285, 16-300, 16-307), slip op. at 12.

The Takeaway          

Now, Epic makes clear to employers that arbitration agreements containing class action waivers can effectively limit employees’ disputes to individualized actions.  As such, employers may offer arbitration agreements containing class action waivers at the outset of an employment relationship to avoid future collective actions.  However, when deciding whether to make use of such arbitration agreements, employers may also want to weigh the potential cumulative cost of multiple individual arbitrations – particularly given that employers in California normally must bear the cost of the arbitrator in such actions.  Employers should consult with legal counsel before determining whether arbitration clauses with class action waivers will advance their goals.

 

 

Firm Highlights

News

Farella Adds Technology Industry Group Depth

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020

Read More
Event

Complex Civil Litigation Symposium

Doug Dexter is a member of the planning committee for the 2019 Complex Civil Litigation Symposium.

Read More
Publication

New California Crown Act Reminds Employers to Carefully Consider Workplace Dress and Grooming Policies

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law the nation’s first bill banning discrimination based on an employee’s hairstyle. Senate Bill 188, otherwise known as the Crown Act, expanded the definition of race under...

Read More
Publication

Employers Have Less Than Six Months Left to Complete New Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training

If you have not yet made arrangements to comply with the new California sexual harassment training requirements, now is the time to put those plans in place. Under a new law that took effect...

Read More
Publication

California Court Finds Shift Call-Ins May Trigger Reporting Time Pay

A California court has held that employees required to call their employers before a shift to determine whether they are assigned to work may be entitled to reporting time pay on days when they...

Read More
Publication

In the Weeds: Marijuana Legalization & Employment Laws

Over the last several years, attitudes towards marijuana use have rapidly changed in the United States. According to a 2018 Pew Research Survey, 62 percent of U.S. respondents said marijuana use should be legal...

Read More
News

40 Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

SAN FRANCISCO, July 8, 2019: Forty Farella Braun + Martel attorneys across practice areas were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2019. Farella attorneys...

Read More
Publication

Are You Background Checking Your Contractors? If So, Exercise Caution.

Employers who use background checks in their hiring processes are likely aware of the various requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and analogous state statutes. They must provide clear disclosures and obtain...

Read More
Publication

New California Employment Laws Will Require Significant Changes in 2019

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law several bills that will have significant impact on employers’ workplace obligations. Effective January 1, 2019, the new laws will restrict nondisclosure agreements and certain settlement agreements covering...

Read More