Employment Law Observer

In deciding Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved a circuit split, answering the question of whether a party must show prejudice when arguing that the opposing party waived its right to compel arbitration. Previously, all federal circuit courts except the Seventh and D.C. Circuits used an arbitration-specific waiver rule that requires a showing of prejudice. The Supreme Court has now eliminated this requirement.

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this second day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: two turtle doves and SB 762.

Historically, there has been a "push and pull" between the National Labor Relations Board (Board) and employers over mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers. Although most of the disputes have been resolved by recent SCOTUS jurisprudence, the Board remains concerned with restrictions in arbitration agreements that limit the ability of employees to file unfair labor practice charges before the Board if employees believe their Section 7 rights have been violated.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently articulated a new statutory framework for determining whether notice to a putative plaintiff should be issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). At issue was whether a district court may authorize notice to potential plaintiffs who had entered into arbitration agreements waiving the right to participate in a collective action; or in the alternative, whether these employees are “similarly situated” to a plaintiff that has not waived their right to participate in a collective action.

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law daily and its impact on California employers. On the eleventh day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: eleven ladies dancing and AB 51 and SB 707. 

There is an ongoing tension between the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") and employers who seek to expand the use of an arbitration forum to resolve employment disputes. The U.S. Supreme Court has continued to endorse the idea that arbitration is both an important part of national labor policy and a reasonable alternative to litigation in court for employment-related disputes. As the Board issues new opinions and interprets guidance from the Supreme Court, employers are in a position to gain better insight and avoid problematic drafting mistakes in arbitration agreements.

The United States Supreme Court recently handed workers a rare victory in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira. The Supreme Court ruled that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce—including those labeled as independent contractors—are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and thus cannot be compelled to undergo mandatory arbitration.  As a result of this decision, employers in the transportation industry will have to review their existing arbitration policies and assess whether or not they comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws.

On August 22, 2018, California senators passed a bill that prevents employers from forcing employees to sign mandatory arbitration or nondisclosure agreements in order to secure and/or maintain employment.  AB 3080 prevents retaliation against workers who choose not to sign mandatory arbitration agreements that would waive their right to pursue legal action under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code in courts.  The intent of the bill is not to outlaw arbitration agreements in their entirety, but to provide workers and job applicants with the option to choose the forum in which to air out their grievances. The proposed legislation will now move to the desk of Governor Brown for final approval. 

The United States Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that employees must submit claims to arbitration on an individualized basis when their employment agreements require it, even when those claims could be brought as class or collective action under federal legislation such as the Fair Labor Standards Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that parties to an arbitration agreement are bound by their agreement, as the Federal Arbitration Act envisioned. The Court cited the long history of supporting private arbitration agreements as an efficient and cost-effective means of handling disputes between parties, including parties to an employment agreement who have a dispute over wages.

On Tuesday of this week, a federal judge in Texas granted a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the portions of President Obama's "Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces" Executive Order. 

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.

We recently posted a summary of Peng v. First Republic Bank, a case discussing the validity of an arbitration agreement contained in an employment contract.  Peng is favorable for employers because the court there held that the compulsory arbitration agreement at issue was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.