Big Victory for Employers: Arbitration Clauses Can Prevent Class Action Employment Lawsuits
In a significant victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled- that arbitration clauses in employment contracts are enforceable even if they prevent workers from bringing class action lawsuits.
November 28, 2018 at 01:32 PM
3 minute read
In a significant victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled- that arbitration clauses in employment contracts are enforceable even if they prevent workers from bringing class action lawsuits. The court considered three cases: all involving employees seeking to litigate Fair Labor Standards Act (overtime or minimum wage) and related state law claims through class or collective actions in federal court. Each employee had an employment agreement requiring individual arbitration proceedings.
Arbitration is often preferred by employers because it offers greater confidentiality, often quicker decision-making, and some control over selecting the lawyer who serves as the arbitrator. Arbitration clauses requiring one-on-one proceedings prevent employees from banding together and pooling resources against an employer while represented by (usually) one law firm. Oftentimes, this translates into major litigation cost savings for employers.
The policy behind the court's decision is two-fold. First, federal law has long favored arbitration as a quicker, simpler and less costly way of deciding disputes compared to cases filed in the court system. Second, the court's prior decisions that favor arbitration clauses continue to make sense. The court follows a rule of construction that existing statutes must be interpreted in a way that gives effect to both laws rather than causing conflicts unless there is clear congressional intent that one statute is meant to prevail. For this reason, the court rejected the employees' argument that the National Labor Relations Act's protection of workers' rights to engage in concerted activity for their protection trumps the Federal Arbitration Act.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent, expressed concerns about the potential negative impact of this decision on enforcement of employment laws designed to protect workers. If it is easier for employers to escape class action litigation, then arguably fewer employees will bring claims.
The New York Times estimates that this decision could impact some 25 million employment contracts. Ginsburg noted that research data indicates an increase from 2.1 percent to 53.9 percent since 1992 in nonunionized employers using mandatory arbitration agreements. The percentage of nonunion employers requiring class action waivers is estimated at up to 23.1 percent.
The takeaway? Employers can effectively circumscribe their employees' ability to participate in class action litigation against them by including appropriate arbitration clauses in their employees' employment agreements. This is a strong decision for our corporate clients who are using, or would like to use, arbitration clauses in their employment contracts that restrict class action claims. However, it is critical that the arbitration clause used by the companies comply with the law. Because arbitration clauses are only enforceable if properly drafted, you should consult with experienced employment counsel if you intend to avoid class or collective action employment litigation.
Paul O. Lopez is a director and chief operating officer of Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale. and Megan L. Janes is an associate.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTurning Down the Rancor Around DEI: Re-embracing the Value of—and Values Behind—Workplace Diversity Programs
6 minute readWill Ohtani's 50/50 Ball Be Split 50/50? Fla. Court to Decide Owner of $4.5M Disputed Catch
How the Legislature Can Fix the Middle-Income Affordable Housing Exemption in Fla.'s Live Local Act
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250