What Practitioners Need to Know About Arbitration Class Waivers
Both President Donald Trump and #MeToo swung for the fences on the same issue: employee arbitration. Here's the box score.
August 06, 2018 at 02:42 PM
4 minute read
Both President Donald Trump and #MeToo swung for the fences on the same issue: employee arbitration. Here's the box score. Arbitration class waivers got the green light, but there's a new move to push sexual harassment claims out of arbitration and into court.
Where does that leave employers? Arbitration looks better than ever. An employer who doesn't give arbitration a hard look may regret it.
Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because he “respects our laws.” In Epic Systems, a class waiver in an employee arbitration policy tested Justice Gorsuch's mettle. Detractors said that class waivers, which force employees to settle the score in individual actions, violate their statutory right to engage in “concerted activity.” Speaking for a five-justice majority, Gorsuch wrote that Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act doesn't stretch that far. Class waivers are in.
Class claims come at employers from all angles. Overtime lawsuits jump to mind first. Small wonder: Class certification is fairly easy and, on key defenses, the employer shoulders the burden of proof. Don't forget background check claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act or good old-fashioned discrimination claims. With a class waiver, Walmart wouldn't have needed to fight the Dukes discrimination class all the way to SCOTUS.
Class waivers keep disputes mano-a-mano. That's a huge edge right off the bat. Overtime pay disputes can be contained to a single plaintiff or a tightly knight group, instead of mushrooming into all-out class warfare.
Arbitration isn't all sunshine and roses. Inspired by #MeToo, some lawmakers are working to exclude sexual harassment claims from arbitration. New York and Washington have passed laws on it. Several other states have tinkered with the idea, but come up short of a law so far. But state laws may be dead on arrival. Back in Concepcion, SCOTUS drop-kicked a California Supreme Court opinion that wiped out arbitration class waivers. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that California's rule couldn't survive pre-emption because it posed an “obstacle” to the Federal Arbitration Act.
#MeToo turned to Congress. There, representatives from both sides of the aisle introduced a bill aiming to invalidate any arbitration program that covers sexual harassment or discrimination claims. That would include claims for equal pay. The push got momentum in February from a letter to Congress signed by the attorneys general of all 50 states. They urged Congress to exclude sexual harassment claims from arbitration. Since then, the bill has gone nowhere.
Swayed by #MeToo, some companies choose to carve out sexual harassment claims from their arbitration programs. Uber and Lyft are two examples. They hope that resolving these disputes in open court will bolster the transparency that could let repeat offenders avoid detection. Arbitration, though, doesn't have to be a black hole. An employee-turned-plaintiff often files suit in court first, publicizing her allegations before moving into arbitration. And an arbitration policy can limit confidentiality to certain types of claims, or ditch it entirely. Arbitration and #MeToo can co-exist peacefully.
Employers warmed up to arbitration, even before SCOTUS backed class waivers. Back in September 2017, 56 percent of American workers were part of an employer's arbitration program. That's according to a study of nonunion employees in the private sector by the Economic Policy Institute.
Arbitration's popularity has everything to do with its flexibility. Employers get to pick where and how they resolve employee disputes. Discovery limits and venue selection clauses in arbitration policies are deadly enforceable. Done right, arbitration can streamline and centralize dispute resolution where a company is headquartered.
Flexibility should make both #MeToo and Trump crack a smile. For #MeToo, arbitration promises swift justice for sexual harassment victims, certainly faster than a federal lawsuit. And Trump would appreciate arbitration's efficiency.
Many large employers agree that arbitration is the way to go. Will the president and #MeToo see eye to eye on arbitration too?
Alan Bush, posted on The Woodlands Waterway with the Bush Law Firm, represents companies in labor and employment matters. He speaks and writes extensively, breaking the law down into actionable business points.
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 AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readTrending Stories
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