Pages

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

National Labor Relations Board Contends Class Action Waivers Violate National Labor Relations Act

By Christopher S. Andre and Scott K. Dauscher

As we previously reported here,  a report issued by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Research, shows that employment cases were the most frequently filed class actions, representing 29.3% of the class actions filed, and that over half of the employment cases filed alleged violations of Labor Code provisions governing payment of wages, rest and meal periods, and related claims.  This is consistent with our experience representing numerous employers against such class action lawsuits.
Many employers have attempted to require current and former employees to pursue claims individually and not by way of class action lawsuits by requiring employees to agree to arbitrate individually whatever claims they might have.  
The National Labor Relations Board contends employer-employee arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate whatever claims they have individually violates the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"):
  • On January 3, 2012, in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184, the NLRB issued a decision and order against D.R. Horton, Inc., stating an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA when the employer "requires employees . . . , as a condition of their employment, to sign an agreement that precludes them from filing joint, class, or collective claims addressing their wages, hours or other working conditions against the employer in any forum, arbitral or judicial."  The NLRB found "such an agreement unlawfully restricts employees' Section 7 right to engage in concerted action for mutual aid or protection notwithstanding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which generally makes employment-related arbitration agreements judicially enforceable."
  • On April 30, 2012, the NLRB issued a press release touting the NLRB's filing of a complaint against 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., alleging 24 Hour Fitness violated the NLRA "by insisting that all employment-related disputes be resolved by individual arbitration."  The NLRB press release states its investigation "was prompted by a charge filed by an employee at the 24 Hour Fitness center in San Ramon, California. Since at least the summer of 2010, the company has enforced its no-class-action policy by asserting it in litigation brought by employees in numerous cases, seven of which are cited in the complaint. In each case, employees, who are not represented by a union, sought to bring workplace-related claims, such as wage and hour violations, on a class-wide basis. In response, 24 Hour Fitness sought to compel the employees to submit their common claims to individual arbitrations, citing the policy in its handbook."  In other words, the NLRB contends 24 Hour Fitness violated the NLRA by responding to lawsuits by filing in the courts where those lawsuits were brought petitions to compel arbitration (i.e., to enforce in court the arbitration agreements the plaintiff employees signed).  
It remains to be seen whether the courts and, particularly, the Supreme Court of the United States, will uphold the NLRB's position that employer-employee arbitration agreements requiring employees to pursue claims against their employer by arbitration individually and not on a class basis or in a representative capacity violate employee's rights to collective action under the NLRA.  The issue is not presently before the Supreme Court, but we think it is a virtual certainty that the issue will eventually be addressed by the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, based on the position the NLRB is taking and based on the NLRB's enforcement actions against employers using arbitration agreements requiring employees to arbitrate claims on an individual basis, we think employers that have in place or are considering implementing arbitration agreements requiring employees to arbitrate claims on an individual basis should consult competent employment law counsel.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Proposed New Legislation Would Bar Class Action Waivers

By Christopher S. Andre and Scott K. Dauscher

Many employers have attempted to require current and former employees to pursue claims individually and not by way of class action lawsuits by requiring employees to agree to arbitrate individually whatever claims they might have.
The Los Angeles Daily Journal reports today that the Consumer Attorneys of California, a trade association of plaintiff's attorneys, is sponsoring a California Senate Bill that would make class action waivers unenforceable.  State Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) is expected to introduce today a bill stating as follows:  
Any term in a contract of adhesion purporting to waive the right to join or consolidate claims, or to bring a claim as a representative member of a class or in a private attorney general capacity shall be deemed to lack the necessary consent to waive that right, and is void.
Today's action is a reaction to the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Vincent Concepcion, previously discussed here, reversing a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding (1) that an arbitration agreement between AT&T and its cell phone customers requiring customers to bring claims in their "'individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding'" is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable because,"AT&T had not shown that . . . arbitration adequately substituted for the deterrent effect of class actions" and (2) that the basis for the finding of unconscionability "was not preempted by the [Federal Arbitration Act ('FAA')]."  In other words, the Supreme Court rejected lower courts' analyses of the issue and held that arbitration agreements are generally enforceable according to their terms under the FAA, and neither California courts nor other courts can evade the FAA merely by declaring an arbitration agreement to be "unconcionable" in whole or in part.  The Court explained "the judicial hostility towards arbitration that prompted the FAA had manifested itself in 'a great variety' of devices and formulas' declaring arbitration against public policy." 
Although the Supreme Court's landmark ruling concerned an arbitration provision of a consumer contract and not an arbitration agreement between an employer and an employee, we think the holding and the reasoning of the decision apply with equal or nearly equal force to arbitration agreements between employers and employees.  In Southland Corp., v. Keating, the Supreme Court held the FAA applies to state courts and is intended to preempt state anti-arbitration laws to the contrary, and in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Stain Clair Adams, the Supreme Court held the FAA generally applies to employment contracts. 
The Consumer Attorneys of California describe the bill as one of the group's top priorities for 2012, stating:
The United States Supreme Court in April 2011 issued a devastating 5-to-4 opinion that dramatically tilted the playing field in favor of corporations in class actions. Concepcion set a dangerous precedent by allowing AT&T to enforce a contract provision that requires customers to arbitrate their disputes individually, rather than class-wide. (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742.) CAOC believes that legislation is needed to restore the right to join claims while not interfering with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or frustrating its purpose. CAOC is working with the Consumer Federation of California and labor groups and will be introducing legislation authored by Senate Judiciary and Women's Caucus Chair Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa).
It remains to be seen whether the bill will be adopted and remains to be seen whether if adopted the legislation would effectively skirt the FAA Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Concepcion.  In any event, we will monitor this new proposed legislation and report here further developments.