Gorsuch Decision on Arbitration Could Open Courthouse Doors for More Workers
A recent win for truck drivers in the U.S. Supreme Court suggests new possibilities for access to the courts. It is possible that this decision may have even broader implications for employees with boiler-plate arbitration clauses in their contracts.
February 25, 2019 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
The Supreme Court has long extended the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) nearly to the limits of congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. It has imposed the FAA's preemptive coverage on all private employees except for transportation workers who, it admits, are statutorily excluded. It has stricken state laws and court decisions that it says particularly burden arbitration. The Supreme Court treats “click accept” as a knowing waiver of rights. Compulsory arbitration and class action bars are prevalent in non-negotiable employment contracts. But a recent win for truck drivers in the U.S. Supreme Court suggests new possibilities for access to the courts.
The recent New Prime v. Oliveira was a unanimous (8-0) decision that surprised many. Although the driver's class action was seemingly within the “transport workers” exclusion from the FAA, and therefore the FAA's requirement that arbitration clauses be enforced did not apply, the employer claimed that the driver was an independent contractor, so his work was not “employment.” Under the employer's reading, the exclusion from FAA coverage would not apply and federal law would require the driver to arbitrate his claim regardless of state law. Justice Gorsuch dug into contemporary dictionaries in a Scalian search for original ordinary meaning. He concluded that when Congress enacted the FAA in 1925, the term “contracts of employment” referred to all agreements to perform work. “No less than those who came before him, Mr. Oliveira is entitled to the benefit of the same understanding today.” Consequently, the driver was not barred by the FAA and could litigate his putative class action Fair Labor Standards Act claim.
It is possible that this recent decision may have even broader implications for employees with boiler-plate arbitration clauses in their contracts. The FAA excludes “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” (the transport workers exclusion). But the high court in Circuit City Stores v. Adams (2001) ruled that only transportation workers were excluded from the FAA's mandate that arbitration clauses be enforced. Writing for a bare majority, Justice Kennedy narrowly construed the exclusion—limiting it to transportation workers. He relied on the dubious, judge-made canon or maxim of statutory interpretation ejusdem generis (roughly: a broad residual phrase should be limited by the specific characteristics of the words preceding it). Consequently he concluded that the statute's residual phrase “or any other class of workers” had to be limited to the specific characteristics of “seamen and railroad employees.” Further, he asserted that this was an “immediate and … insurmountable TEXTUAL obstacle” to reading “or any other class of workers” according to its ordinary meaning—a less dubious, albeit judge-made, approach. He therefore purported to transform a questionable judicial approach to reading statutes, which competes with the more accepted “ordinary meaning” canon, into what he characterized as a plain-meaning, textual approach. He also rejected clear legislative history. Lauding the “advantages of the arbitration process” the court enjoined a state employment discrimination action, compelling arbitration as required by the retailer's contract of employment.
Gorsuch's embrace of the 1925 “original meaning” of the FAA now casts doubt on Circuit City's application of the FAA to all but transportation workers. The dissenters in that case understood the exclusion to extend to all contracts of employment in interstate commerce. Justices John Paul Stephens and David Souter, in separate opinions, relied on the FAA's legislative history. Congress, at the urging of the ABA, was eager to end judicial resistance to commercial arbitration agreements. Commerce Secretary Hebert Hoover suggested an amendment excluding contracts of employment to address labor union (primarily maritime unions) opposition. This became the transport workers exclusion. Justice Souter even suggested an alternative canon to interpret the residual clause “any other class of workers …”: ex abundanti cautela (abundance of caution). We know that judges often choose between seeming opposite-pointing canons of statutory interpretation.
Embrace of this original meaning of the FAA (together with a rejection of the artificial, canon-based approach) could raise doubt about the Circuit City holding and make it possible for courts and legislatures to lift from workers in all industries in interstate commerce the burden of “take it or leave it” arbitration clauses.
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 AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 2'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 3Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 4A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 5Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
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