No Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements, Says NLRB
1 min read
Oct 31, 2014
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided to follow its own oft-criticized 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, holding that arbitration agreements barring class action lawsuits about working conditions, which are signed by employees as a condition of employment, are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act.
In the case, Murphy Oil USA, Inc. and Sheila Hobson, 361 NLRB No. 72, (Oct. 28, 2014), the binding arbitration agreement at issue was provided to employee Sheila Hobson by her employer Murphy Oil USA as a condition of employment when she was hired to work at the company's Calera, Alabama facility.
Hobson later filed a collective action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Murphy Oil filed a motion to compel arbitration, seeking to force Hobson and others to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis rather than file a collective suit. In response, Hobson filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB; a NLRB complaint was subsequently issued against Murphy Oil, alleging that the arbitration agreement signed by Hobson and others violated Section 7 of the NLRA by prohibiting employees from litigating their employment-related claims concertedly.
The District Court granted Murphy Oil's motion to compel individual arbitration. While the District Court action was stayed pending arbitration, however, the NLRB issued its decision striking the class action ban in Murphy Oil's arbitration agreement.
This decision stokes the flames ignited by the NLRB in D.R. Horton, a decision that was subsequently overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected by many federal courts, and strongly criticized by some (including the Fifth Circuit in its ruling) as conflicting with United States Supreme Court precedent as set forth in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). Given this backdrop, employers should make note of the NLRB's ruling as it is likely an appeal will follow, which may end up at the United States Supreme Court. If you have any questions about the case or your own agreements, please contact your Hinshaw employment attorney.
Featured Insights

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance


