“Should employees and employers be allowed to agree that any disputes between them will be resolved through one-on-one arbitration? Or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions, no matter what they agreed with their employers?” Judge Gorsuch posed these questions in the U.S. Supreme Court’s answer – employees and employers are permitted to agree to one-on-one arbitration. On May 21, 2018, in the consolidated cases Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., SCOTUS declared that class action waivers are valid and enforceable.
The Court rejected the employees’ argument that the Savings Clause of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) rendered arbitration agreements unenforceable because they are illegal under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Court held that Section 7, in protecting employee rights to engage in other concerted activities, did not address nor protect an employee’s absolute right to pursue claims through class and collective actions. In addition, the Court held that the Chevron case did not require the Court to defer to the National Labor Relations Board’s interpretation of this issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court specifically addressed an employee’s right to pursue his or her wage and hour rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) through class action and collective actions, and held arbitration agreements in such instances are enforceable. In Morris, the former employee, despite having agreed to arbitrate claims against the firm, sued Ernst & Young in federal court. Morris alleged that the firm had improperly misclassified and paid its junior accountants in violation of the FLSA. In enforcing the arbitration agreement, the Court noted the peculiarity of the argument that the NLRA protects an employee’s right to bring a collective action under the FLSA.
What This Means for Employers
First, perhaps more sleep. Any persisting anxiety related to whether your company’s arbitration agreements including class action waivers will be upheld, may be laid to rest. Employers can now enter into agreements that require individualized arbitration with their employees with the blessing of the High Court. Further, this decision affords employers greater security in the enforceability of existing agreements.
Second, employers have an unequivocal answer that their arbitration agreements may be enforced in the face of potential wage and hour class and collective actions. Wage and hour disputes are commonly filed as class and collective actions, and this opinion specifically offers clarity to employers in these situations.
However, this does not mean that any and every arbitration agreement will be upheld, as the choice of language in these clauses is still important to ensure enforceability. An agreement will still be analyzed for clarity and mutual assent, even under the liberal policy of enforcement within the FAA. Now is a good time to review or create arbitration agreements using the Supreme Court’s guidance.
For more information about this topic or any other labor and employment issue, please contact Katharine Batista at email@example.com or
ABOUT KATHARINE BATISTA
Ms. Batista is a Labor & Employment attorney that assists her clients when deciding issues like: If my employee has exhausted her FMLA leave and remains out, am I required to hold her position open? Can I terminate my employee for testing positive for marijuana? Will this non-compete agreement be enforced? She helps her clients answer these and similar questions, and vigorously defends their decisions. She represents businesses, such as restaurants, hotels, banks, retailers and health care providers, in the spectrum of employment and labor claims. Specifically, Ms. Batista successfully defends employers against claims of discrimination and harassment, retaliation, wrongful terminations and wage and hour violations. An employee’s post-separation conduct often requires legal advice and action too. Ms. Batista commonly represents her clients in bringing actions for breach of restrictive covenants and contractual interference, as well as defends them against such claims. Employment and labor law is ever changing. Employers need to feel secure in how they manage their employees so they can focus on their business. Ms. Batista affords her clients that security.
ABOUT OFFIT KURMAN
Offit Kurman is one of the fastest-growing, full-service law firms in the Mid-Atlantic region. With over 170 attorneys offering a comprehensive range of services in virtually every legal category, the firm is well positioned to meet the needs of dynamic businesses and the people who own and operate them. Our eleven offices serve individual and corporate clients in the Virginia, Washington, DC, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York City regions. At Offit Kurman, we are our clients’ most trusted legal advisors, professionals who help maximize and protect business value and personal wealth. In every interaction, we consistently maintain our clients’ confidence by remaining focused on furthering their objectives and achieving their goals in an efficient manner. Trust, knowledge, confidence—in a partner, that’s perfect.
You can connect with Offit Kurman via our Blog, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube, and LinkedIn pages. You can also sign up to receive Law Matters, Offit Kurman’s monthly newsletter covering a diverse selection of legal and corporate thought leadership content.
MARYLAND | PENNSYLVANIA | VIRGINIA| NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK | DELAWARE | WASHINGTON, DC