Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

SCOTUS to Determine Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Employment Contract Arbitration Clauses

January 13, 2017 by Julianna Thomas McCabe

Today the United States Supreme Court granted and consolidated three petitions for certiorari related to the validity of class action waiver clauses in employer/employee arbitration agreements.  The Court has consolidated the petitions in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (No. 16-285), Ernst & Young v. Morris (No. 16-300), and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (No. 16-307).

Classified previously blogged about the Ninth Circuit’s decision finding Ernst & Young’s class action waiver unenforceable based on the collective action provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”).  In recent years, following a series of arbitration-friendly Supreme Court decisions, including Stolt-Nielson in 2010, Concepcion in 2011, and DirectTV in 2015, businesses have significantly increased the use of class action waivers in arbitration agreements in various types of contracts.

As Carlton Fields reported in our 2016 annual Class Action Survey of Best Practices in Reducing Cost and Managing Risk in Class Action Litigation, the use of arbitration clauses barring class actions increased from a reported 16.1% to 39.2% from 2012 to 2015. The issue that the High Court will consider this term is whether such waivers are enforceable in the employment context, or whether the collective-bargaining provisions of the NLRA render such waivers unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA), and provide an absolute right to employees to resolve their employment disputes through  collective proceedings, whether or not they entered into otherwise enforceable arbitration contracts. The Court’s decision in these cases is expected to resolve a significant Circuit split.  The Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuit courts have held that the FAA requires the enforcement of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements.  The Seventh and the Ninth Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion, holding that such waivers interfere with the rights of employees to “concerted activities” under the NLRA, and are unenforceable. The current eight member Supreme Court is without Justice Scalia, who authored the 5-4 Concepcion opinion in 2011, and whose vote on this issue would have almost certainly fallen on the side of enforceability.  The Court’s ultimate decision is likely to have significant financial implications for business in resolving employment disputes.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

State Law Prohibiting Class Actions Does Not Preclude Court From Maintaining Certification and Approving Settlement Agreement

Next Article »

Ninth Circuit Parses “Administrative Feasibility” and “Ascertainability” – Refuses to Acknowledge Either as a Prerequisite to Class Certification
Julianna Thomas McCabe

About Julianna Thomas McCabe

Julianna McCabe is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida, and chair of the firm's National Class Actions practice group. Connect with Julianna on LinkedIn.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • A Class Action Settlement With a Chocolate Company Melts Away: Eleventh Circuit Issues En Banc Decision on Article III Standing Principles
  • Sixth Circuit Rejects a Novel Concept: Certification of “Negotiation Class” in Opioid Multidistrict Litigation
  • An Unauthorized Bounty: Eleventh Circuit Strikes Named Plaintiff Incentive Payment

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.