The Supreme Court returns next Monday from its summer vacation for the first full term where Neil Gorsuch will occupy a seat at the far end of the Courtâ€™s bench. And the Court will open this term with a trio of cases that are very likely to immunize many employers from consequences for their illegal actions.
The three cases â€”Â National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA,Â Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, andÂ Epic Systems v. LewisÂ â€”Â all involve employment contracts cutting off employeeâ€™s rights to sue their employer for legal violations.
In at least one case, employees were required to sign the contract as a condition of beginning work. In another, employees were forced to give up their rights as a condition of keeping their job. These contracts contained two restrictions on the employees: 1) a â€śforced arbitrationâ€ť provision, which requires any legal disputes between the employer and the employee to be resolved in a privatized arbitration system; and 2) a provision prohibiting employees from bringing class actions or other collective suits against their employers.
Requiring private arbitrationÂ favors employers over employees. As an Economic Policy Institute study determined, employees are less likely to prevail before an arbitrator than before a court, and they typically receive less money from an arbitrator when they do prevail.
Banning class action suits, meanwhile, effectively permits employers toÂ violate the law with impunity, so long as they do not do too much harm to any individual employee.
If an employer cheats one employee out of $300,000 worth of wages, for example, that employee is likely to be able to find a lawyer who will take his case on a contingency basis â€” meaning that the lawyer gets a percentage of what the employee collects from the employer if they win.Â If the same employer cheats 10,000 employees out of $30 each, however, no lawyer is going to represent any one of these workers on a contingency basis.Â Plus, few employees are likely to bother with a $30 suit. Itâ€™s too much hassle, and too expensive to hire a lawyer who wonâ€™t work on contingency.Â The solution to this problem is a class action suit, which allows the 10,000 employees to join together in a single case litigated by a single legal team.
Banning such class actions effectively leaves these employees without remedy. As one federal judge explained,Â â€śthe realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, asÂ only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.â€ť
The employerâ€™s claim that they can combine a forced arbitration clause with a class action ban arises out of two previous Supreme Court cases that took an extraordinarily creative view of a nearly 100-year-old law.
In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to allow, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once explained,Â â€śmerchants with relatively equal bargaining powerâ€ť to agree to resolve their disputes through arbitration. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the Court started to read this law expansively to permit forced arbitration between businesses and relatively powerless consumers and employees.
Then, the Court got even more aggressive. By its own terms, the Federal Arbitration Act exemptsÂ â€śworkers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.â€ť Nevertheless, in its 5-4 decision inÂ Circuit City v. Adams, the Supreme Court held that the Act applies to most workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. Thus, forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts were given special protected status, even though the federal law governing these clauses says otherwise.
Similarly, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a 5-4 Court inÂ AT&T Mobility v. ConcepcionÂ that the Federal Arbitration Act hasÂ penumbras, formed by emanations from its guarantees that give it life and substance. The right of businesses to insert class action bans, Scalia claimed, is one of these penumbras contained in the 1925 law. And so businesses gained the power to add no class action clauses to their forced arbitration agreements, even if a ban on class actions violates state law â€” and despite the fact that the Federal Arbitration Act says nothing about class actions.
Nevertheless, the employees inÂ Murphy OilÂ and its companion cases hope that another provision of law will protect them from signing away their right to join a class action.
A provision of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides that â€śemployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist laborÂ organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.â€ť Several lower courts have held that an employeeâ€™s right to engage in â€śconcerted activitiesâ€ť protects their right to join class actions, and they cite multiple previous Supreme Court decisions which lend credibility to this claim.
In a world governed by the text of the law, employees would have a strong case that they cannot be forced to give up their right to bring class action litigation. But we live in a world governed byÂ Circuit CityÂ andÂ Concepcion â€”Â both of which demonstrate the Supreme Courtâ€™s willingness to take liberties with the law in forced arbitration cases.