California Employment Law Blog

Supreme Court Shuts Down Another Argument Against Class Waivers

Posted by Tim Del Castillo | May 21, 2018 | 0 Comments

Front of Supreme Court

Today in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that will be welcome news to the ears of employers.  Most larger employers are familiar with the benefits of mandatory arbitration agreements that contain class-action waivers - through their use employers can effectively reduce the risks that attend class action liability.  

Somewhat recently, courts started accepting the argument that such waivers were invalid because they violate the federal National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), which exists to protect employees' right to concerted activity.  The argument, which originated with a decision by President Obama's National Labor Relations Board in 2012, went along the lines of "class actions are a kind of concerted activity protected by the NLRA, therefore employers cannot require employees (union or non-union) to give up those rights by mandatory class-action waivers in arbitration agreements."  Initially, courts mostly rejected the Board's ruling, but since then other courts either agreed with or deferred to the Board's position.  The Ninth and Seventh Circuits are two courts that agreed with the Board's position, but the Supreme Court today told them that they got it wrong.  

The Supreme Court held that Congress has made clear in the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings must be enforced according to their terms, and the NLRA does not allow courts to decide otherwise.  The employees failed to show a “clear and manifest” congressional intention to displace the FAA's intention with that of the NLRA. The NLRA was not enacted to address arbitration agreements or class action litigation.  In other words, there was no "repeal by implication."   

Although this is a victory for employers seeking to avoid class action exposure through the use of arbitration agreements, representative actions under the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") in California are still unwaiveable in pre-dispute arbitration agreements and it does not appear that the Supreme Court will be taking up the issue of PAGA waivers anytime soon.   

About the Author

Tim Del Castillo

Tim practices employment law in California and represents both employees and employers in federal and state courts, administrative hearings, arbitrations, mediations, and in direct negotiations. Tim also offers advice and counsel and training to businesses to help them achieve compliance with California employment laws.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

QUALITY REPRESENTATION FROM A TRUSTED ADVISOR.

Castle Law’s goal is to become your trusted advisor and to provide real value for all of your employment law needs. To become our client’s trusted advisors, we aim to provide quality representation and sound advice time and again.

FREE CONSULTATION.

There is no charge for the initial phone consultation. Attorney Tim Del Castillo will personally speak with you about your case and provide you with an honest analysis. Fill out the contact form on the website with detailed information about your circumstances and we will schedule a telephone appointment.

Copyright © 2018 Tim Del Castillo

Attorney Timothy B. Del Castillo is responsible for the content on this website, which may contain an advertisement. The information on this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship and no attorney-client relationship is formed until conflicts have been cleared and both parties have signed a written fee agreement. Please do not send any confidential information through the website. The materials and information on this website are for informational purposes only and should not be relied on as legal advice. PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE OUTCOMES. Any testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

Menu