The U.S. Supreme Court supposedly settled this issue some years ago in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 333, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1742 (2011). There, the Court, in a nutshell, held:
the overarching purpose of the FAA, evident in the text of §§ 2, 3, and 4, is to ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms so as to facilitate streamlined proceedings. Requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent with the FAA.
The Supreme Court in Concepcion expressly invalidated a line of California precedent, in which the California courts had held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements were unconscionable and void against public policy.
The California Supreme Court recognized Concepcion's rule in its landmark Iskanian ruling:
Concepcion held that the FAA does prevent states from mandating or promoting procedures incompatible with arbitration. The Gentry rule runs afoul of this latter principle. We thus conclude in light of Concepcion that the FAA preempts the Gentry rule.Iskanian v. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 366, 173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289, 299, 327 P.3d 129, 137 (2014)
Why are we walking down memory lane? Hang in there...
Because the National Labor Relations Board waded into this issue and decided in a case called D.R. Horton, 357 N.L.R.B. 2277 (2012), that class action waivers are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act, even if the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws prohibiting them. The Federal Arbitration Act, a federal law, does not preempt the National Labor Relations Act, a federal law. The NLRB's rationale is that a class action is a form of "protected concerted activity" and that requiring employees to waive the right to sue as a class is an unlawful waiver.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the Board and did not enforce its opinion in D.R. Horton. That means the decision was not binding and could not be used as precedent. The California Supreme Court also rejected the Board's rationale in Iskanian:
We thus conclude, in light of the FAA's “‘liberal federal policy favoring arbitration’” (Concepcion, supra, 563 U.S. at p.___ [131 S. Ct. at p. 1745]), that sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA do not represent “ ‘a contrary congressional command’ ” overriding the FAA's mandate (CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, supra, 565 U.S. at p. ___ [132 S. Ct. at p. 669]). This conclusion is consistent with the judgment of all the federal circuit courts and most of the federal district courts that have considered the issue.
So, the NLRB thing was a big yawn, and no one cares because everybody is non-union, right? Well, no. The NLRB's rules apply to non-union employers too, but D.R. Horton wasn't getting a lot of play. Until now.
The Seventh Circuit has just come down in favor of the NLRB's position, in a case involving a non-union employer's motion to compel arbitration in federal court. In Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 15-2997, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9638, at *1 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016), the court of appeals refused to enforce Epic Systems's arbitration agreement because it contained a class action waiver.
The court held that the waiver violated the National Labor Relations Act:
Epic's clause runs straight into the teeth of Section 7. The provision prohibits any collective, representative, [12] or class legal proceeding. Section 7 rovides that "[e]mployees shall have the right to ... engage in ... concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." 29 U.S.C. § 157. A collective, representative, or class legal proceeding is just such a "concerted activit[y]." See Eastex, 437 U.S. at 566; Brady, 644 F.3d at 673; D. R. Horton, 357 N.L.R.B. 2277, at 2278. Under Section 8, any employer action that "interfere[s] with, restrain[s], or coerce[s] employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [Section 7]" constitutes an "unfair labor practice." 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Contracts that stipulate away employees' Section 7 rights or otherwise require actions unlawful under the NRLA are unenforceable.Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 15-2997, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9638, at *11-12 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016)
The Seventh Circuit's decision sets up a circuit split and a chance for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether class action waivers violate the NLRA or not. The Seventh Circuit's decision also gives the NLRB the impetus to bring unfair labor practice charges against employers that maintain class action waivers in their arbitration agreements, which could result in invalidation of those agreements down the road.
So, employers with class action waivers, be aware that challenges to these agreements may come as a result of the NLRB's position in D.R. Horton, especially given the Seventh Circuit's recent endorsement. We will have to see if the Seventh Circuit's decision is taken up for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court already decided not to hear it en banc.
