By Steven W. Suflas, Mark J. Levin and Erin K. Clarke
On December 3, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) ruling that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by requiring employees to waive their rights to pursue class or collective actions as part of an employment arbitration agreement (.D.R. Horton v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 12-60031, 5th Cir. [enhanced opinion available to lexis.com subscribers]).
In 2008, former D.R. Horton employee Michael Cuda sought to initiate a nationwide class arbitration, alleging that D.R. Horton was misclassifying its superintendents as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements. Beginning in 2006, D.R. Horton required all employees to sign a Mutual Arbitration Agreement (MAA) as a condition of employment. The MAA included a provision that all employment-related disputes must be resolved through individual arbitration, waiving employee rights to pursue class or collective actions through either a judicial or arbitral forum. Thus, D.R. Horton rejected the arbitration demand, arguing that the MAA barred arbitration of collective claims. Mr. Cuda then filed an unfair labor practice charge, alleging that the class action waiver violated the NLRA.
The NLRB ruled that the MAA unlawfully infringed upon employees’ substantive rights under Section 7 of the NLRA to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection with respect to terms and conditions of employment. D.R. Horton appealed the decision.
In a much-anticipated decision, the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the NLRB’s conclusion. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CompuCredit v. Greenwood [enhanced opinion], the Fifth Circuit found that the NLRA does not create a congressional command that overrides the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). It found nothing in the NLRA’s text or legislative history evidencing a congressional intent to disavow arbitration. It also found no inherent conflict between the FAA and the NLRA’s purpose.
The Fifth Circuit therefore concluded that under AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion [enhanced opinion], the MAA’s class action waiver must be enforced according to its terms. The court was impressed that every other circuit to consider the application of the NLRB's opinion to a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement has rejected that argument and found such waivers enforceable. In dissent, Judge James E. Graves, Jr., wrote that he would affirm the NLRB's opinion, thus insuring that the debate over the NLRB's D.R. Horton decision will continue.
The court did, however, agree with the NLRB’s finding that D.R. Horton violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (4) of the NLRA because the MAA could be read by a reasonable employee as prohibiting the filing of a charge with the NLRB. A list of exclusions in the MAA did not expressly mention unfair labor practice claims under the NLRA.
Interestingly, the court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of President Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB, leaving that issue to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in the pending Noel Canning case [lexis.com subscribers may access Supreme Court briefs for this case].
Ballard Spahr’s Labor and Employment Group has substantial experience in designing employment arbitration programs and in both compelling arbitration and enforcing class action waivers in individual and class action lawsuits. The firm’s Consumer Financial Services Group pioneered the use of pre-dispute arbitration provisions in consumer financial services agreements. It is nationally recognized for its guidance in structuring and documenting new consumer financial services products, its experience with the full range of federal and state consumer credit laws, and its skill in litigation defense and avoidance.
If you have any questions on the Fifth Circuit’s decision or on the use of arbitration agreements, please contact Steven W. Suflas at 856.761.3466 or firstname.lastname@example.org, Mark J. Levin at 215.864.8235 or email@example.com, Erin K. Clarke at 215.864.8318 or firstname.lastname@example.org, or the member of the Group with whom you work.
Copyright © 2013 by Ballard Spahr LLP. www.ballardspahr.com (No claim to original U.S. government material.)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.
This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.