Trump Fave Amul Thapar Broadens SCOTUS Ruling Against Worker Class Actions
Leading a federal appeals panel, Thapar said the Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't "displace" the requirement that judges enforce arbitration agreements as they are written. The Supreme Court this term, confronting the National Labor Relations Act, ruled against workers.
August 15, 2018 at 05:24 PM
4 minute read
A federal appeals court Wednesday broadened the reach of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that strengthened the ability of companies to squash employee class actions through mandatory arbitration agreements.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit panel, led by Amul Thapar, who'd made President Donald Trump's Supreme Court short-list, said the justices' decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis should extend to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and disputes that involve overtime pay and minimum wage. The Epic Systems decision only confronted the National Labor Relations Act, which governs union-related activity.
“The Supreme Court recently held that the National Labor Relations Act does not invalidate individual arbitration agreements. That holding answers half of this case,” Thapar, appointed last year to the appeals court, wrote for the unanimous panel. “The other half, in which the plaintiffs seek to carve out a separate destiny for the Fair Labor Standards Act, meets a similar end.”
Thapar was joined in the ruling by two George W. Bush-appointed judges, Julia Smith Gibbons and Deborah Cook. Their decision in the case, Gaffers v. Kelly Services, overturned a trial judge in Michigan who had permitted the collective claims to proceed against the company, which provides outsourcing and consulting services.
The appeals court said the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, does not “displace” a separate provision under the Federal Arbitration Act that requires judges to enforce arbitration agreements as they are written.
“Whether modern arbitration practice is consistent with Congress's goals for the FLSA is a question that only Congress can answer,” Thapar wrote. “Our role is to interpret and analyze the statute's text—not what Gaffers thinks Congress meant to say.”
A lawyer for the employees, Jason Thompson, senior shareholder at Sommers Schwartz, did not respond immediately to a request for comment. Seyfarth Shaw partner Gerald Maatman Jr. argued for Kelly Services. He did not immediately comment on the ruling.
The dispute was anchored in claims by a former Kelly Services employee who alleged the company underpaid him and his fellow employees who worked remotely. More than 1,600 employees joined the action seeking back pay and damages. Nearly half of the employees signed an arbitration agreement that required disputes to be settled outside of court.
The appeals panel found that neither the National Labor Relations Act nor the Fair Labor Standards Act were “an obstacle to the arbitration agreements in this case.” The Supreme Court in Epic Systems had only looked at the labor relations act. The high court determined the Federal Arbitration Act, or FAA, trumped the labor law.
The Sixth Circuit, following the Supreme Court's ruling, asked each side to discuss the reach of the justices' decision.
Maatman argued that the Supreme Court “has never found a federal statute to override the FAA, and every circuit court to consider the issue has rejected the notion that the FLSA does so.” Maatman's brief argued the Supreme Court's decision reaffirmed “the principle that the FAA establishes a broad, liberal federal policy favoring arbitration.”
Thompson, in his supplemental brief, argued that the Epic Systems ruling did not apply to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and he further said the decision “strongly cautions against applying the holding” in such disputes. In adopting the Fair Labor Standards Act, Thompson wrote, “Congress specifically and expressly provided for collective action rights.” He added: “There is no leap of logic required nor any grammatical gamesmanship permitted, as was the case in Epic.”
Read the ruling in Gaffers v. Kelly Services:
Read more:
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readBaltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute read5th Circuit Judge Jones Slams Proposal for Greater Amicus Brief Funding Disclosure
'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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