Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit took sides in a major split within the U.S. Courts of Appeals over the enforceability of class arbitration waivers. InÂ Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 13-16599, Slip. Op. (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that employers violateÂ Sections 7 and 8Â of the National Labor Relations Act (â€śNLRAâ€ť) by requiring employees covered by the NLRA to waive, as a condition of their employment, participation in â€śconcerted activitiesâ€ť such as class and collective actions. (Slip Op. at 1.)
By this holding, the Ninth Circuit joins the Seventh Circuit, which inÂ Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016)Â adopted the National Labor Relations Board (â€śThe Boardâ€ť) position inÂ D.R. Horton, Inc.,Â 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012). Under this line of authority, the Federal Arbitration Act (â€śFAAâ€ť) does not mandate enforcement of a contract that waives the substantive federal right to engage in concerted action established in Section 7 of the NLRA. (Slip Op. at p. 18-19.)Â Bryan Schwartz LawÂ blogged in detail about theÂ Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp.Â decision,Â here.
InÂ Morris, two employees filed a class and collective action alleging that their employer had misclassified workers as exempt and deprived them of overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (â€śFLSAâ€ť) and California labor laws. As a condition of employment, the employees were required to sign contracts containing a â€śconcerted action wavierâ€ť that obligated them (1) to pursue legal claims against their employer exclusively through arbitration and (2) to arbitrate individually in â€śseparate proceedings.â€ť Based on these agreements, the employer moved to compel the employees to arbitrate their claims individually. The U.S. District Court granted the employerâ€™s motion. (Slip Op. at p. 4-5.)
The Ninth Circuit reversed, reviewing the decision to compel arbitrationÂ de novo. Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas explained in the opinion:
This case turns on a well-established principal: employees have the right to pursue work-related legal claims together. 29 U.S.C. Â§ 157;Â Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 566 (1978). Concerted activity â€“ the right of employees to actÂ togetherÂ â€“ is the essential substantive right established by the NLRA. 29 U.S.C. Â§ 157. Ernst & Young interfered with that right by requiring its employees to resolve all of their legal claims in â€śseparate proceedings.â€ť Accordingly the concerted action waiver violates the NLRA and cannot be enforced.
(Id.Â at p. 6.)
The Ninth Circuit explained that the FAA does not dictate a contrary result. (Id.Â at 14.) While the FAA creates a â€śfederal policy favoring arbitrationâ€ť clause enforcement, the Act contains a savings clause that prohibits enforcement of arbitration agreements that defeat substantive federal rights, including the right to engage in concerted activity under the NLRA. (Id.Â at 15, 26.) InÂ Morris, employeesâ€™ waiver was illegal not because it required the employees to pursue their claims in arbitration, but rather, because they could not do so in concert. (Id.Â at p. 16.)
Other circuit courts have taken a contrary position, enforcing employers concerted action waivers under the FAA.Â See Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC v. N.L.R.B., 824 F.3d 772, 776 (8th Cir. June 2, 2016);Â Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015);Â Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (8th Cir. 2013);Â D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344, 361 (5th Cir. 2013);Â Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 726 F.3d 290, 297 n.8 (2d Cir. 2013).
As more circuits choose sides on whether class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable, Supreme Court review becomes an inevitability.
The High Court would also be wise to resolve a disagreement between the Ninth and Seventh Circuits regarding such waivers. In the Seventh Circuit, any â€ś[c]ontracts that stipulate away employeesâ€™ Section 7 rights . . . are unenforceable.â€ťÂ Epic, 823 F.3d. at 1155. The Ninth Circuit precedent is narrower, making such contracts enforceable if employment is not conditioned on agreeing to the clause. (Slip. Op. 11, n. 4.) For example, if an employee has the opportunity to opt-out of a class action waiver and keep his or her job, but chooses not to, that waiver would be enforceable by the employer in the Ninth Circuit. (Id.Â (citingÂ Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdaleâ€™s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2014))). The Seventh Circuit provides a clearer rule, one that better comports with the purposes of the NLRA, and one that the Supreme Court should adopt.
For now, workers in the Ninth and Seventh Circuits, as well as their advocates, should take note that employers cannot force employees to sign class action waivers as a condition of employment, becauseÂ EpicÂ andÂ MorrisÂ tell us that the NLRA provides employees with the right to vindicate their employment rights collectively.
This blog appeared on Bryan Schwartz Law on August 23, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Rachel Terp is an associate at Bryan Schwartz Law, where she focuses on employment discrimination, whistleblower, and wage and hour claims. Previously, Ms. Terp was a Bridge Fellow with the East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC), where she specialized in consumer litigation.
Â Bryan Schwartz Law is an Oakland, California-based law firm dedicated to helping employees protect their rights in the workplace. Mr. Schwartz and his firm have fought to prohibit discrimination, retaliation, and harassment obtained reasonable accommodation for disabled employees, vindicated whistleblowersâ€™ rights and ensured that corporations pay workers all wages they are owed. Bryan Schwartz Law has successfully litigated individual and class action complaints nationwide, helping to recover millions of dollars for thousands of employees, forcing corporations and Government agencies to change their practices and punish wrongdoers.Â Bryan Schwartz Law is also one of the few Bay Area-based law firms with extensive experience representing Federal employees in their unique Merit Systems Protection Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints.