In D.R. Horton,1 an unprecedented, sweeping ruling affecting both unionized and nonunion employers alike, a two-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that an arbitration agreement that contains a class and collective action waiver clause—precluding employees from filing employment class or collective actions in court or arbitration—violates §8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Procedural History
D.R. Horton, a home builder with locations in 20 states, began in January 2006 to require new and current employees to sign a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement (MAA) as a condition of employment. The MAA did not expressly exempt administrative charges filed with the NLRB or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, the MAA provided that the arbitrator did not have the authority “to fashion a proceeding as a class or collective action or to award relief to a group or class of employees in one arbitration proceeding.”2
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
