Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Worth the Wait?: SCOTUS to Hear Argument on Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Employment Contracts During 2017 Term

February 13, 2017 by Jillian R. Orticelli and Jonathan Sterling

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari in three lawsuits challenging the legality of arbitration agreements that bar workers from pursuing class actions. The Court consolidated the cases, Murphy Oil USA Inc., Epic Systems Corp., and Ernst & Young LLP for oral argument to resolve a circuit split over whether arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from pursuing work-related claims as a group violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

On February 8, the Supreme Court stated that it will not hear argument on these cases until the 2017 term – which begins in October. The issue is of significant concern to employers, many of which see class action waivers as a way to reduce both legal exposure and expense. If enforceable, class action waivers can keep disputes with employees in arbitration and out of court. Whether such constraints on class action litigation are legal has been and remains a hotly contested issue, with the National Labor Relations Board ruling in numerous cases that class action waivers are unenforceable.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Ascertainability and Predominance Foil Certification of Spyware Invasion of Privacy Class

Next Article »

Nothing Crafty About Michaels’ Disclosure Under Spokeo
Avatar

About Jillian R. Orticelli

Jonathan Sterling

About Jonathan Sterling

Jonathan Sterling is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Hartford, Connecticut.

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

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

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.