On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a 2020 California law that attempted to prohibit employers from requiring employees and job applicants to agree to arbitration as a condition of employment. The Court’s 2-1 panel decision in Chamber of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta resolved ambiguity regarding the enforceability of California Assembly Bill (AB) 51.
On March 31, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Badgerow v. Walters, No 20-1143, addressing when federal courts have jurisdiction to rule on motions to confirm, modify, or vacate arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
On February 10, 2022, the U.S. Senate passed S. 2342, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, just a few days after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill, H.R. 4445, on February 7, 2022. If signed by President Biden as expected, the bill would make predispute arbitration agreements or joint-action waivers invalid and unenforceable “with respect to a case which is filed” that “relates to” a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute, “at the election of the person alleging” the misconduct.
As discussed in our prior article, California recently enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 51, a law that attempts to ban certain mandatory employment arbitration agreements in the state.
On October 10, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a state statute purporting to prohibit employers from requiring employees to enter into certain types of arbitration agreements. This new law is creating significant uncertainty and anxiety among employers. What is the practical impact of AB 51 in light of its possible preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and other potential challenges to its limits on arbitration?
On August 14, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a ruling clarifying several mandatory arbitration issues following the 2018 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
In response to the #MeToo movement, a number of states have adopted legislation addressing sexual harassment claims. These include Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. Some of these state statutes attempt to ban or restrict arbitration for sexual harassment claims.
In a surprise decision, the Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled on September 27, 2018, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not protect employment arbitration agreements that are required as a condition of employment.
In Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that class action waiver in an employment arbitration agreement are enforceable. Yet, arbitration agreements containing such waivers may still be challenged on a variety of grounds. The law in this area is often unsettled or unclear and changes frequently. The following checklist identifies key issues employers may want to consider when adopting a class action waiver in an employment arbitration agreement.
On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States settled the contentious class action waiver issue that has riled courts for the past six years. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements.
On October 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in three consolidated cases that will decide the future of class action waivers in the employment context.
August 11, 2017, was the deadline for interested parties to submit comments regarding the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposal to formally rescind its controversial persuader rule, which was issued in 2016 under the Obama administration.
On July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States released the October 2017 term’s calendar for oral arguments, including the date it will hear oral argument in the three consolidated class action waiver cases that are currently before the Court.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) moved one step closer to undoing President Obama’s permanently enjoined “persuader activity” regulation when, on June 12, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for reverse rulemaking to rescind the rule and perhaps revise it.
It was no surprise when, on June 16, 2017, numerous business and employer groups (including several represented by Ogletree Deakins) filed over a dozen amicus briefs supporting the employers in the three class action waiver cases pending in the Supreme Court of the United States: National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.
On June 16, 2017, Ogletree Deakins filed an amicus brief in the class action waiver cases that are currently before the Supreme Court of the United States: National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals—apparently unable to wait a few months for the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on the issue—has now cast its lot with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in finding class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
On January 31, 2017, President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the contentious class action waiver issue that has riled courts for the past four years.
On June 27, 2016, in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Perez, et al., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Lubbock Division) granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, thereby enjoining the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) from implementing and enforcing its revised persuader rule on a national basis. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ challenge to the new rule, which was set to become effective July 1, 2016, has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that Plaintiffs have shown that they would be irreparably harmed if the rule was not enjoined.
In a major win for employers, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, on December 3, 2013, rejected the highly controversial D.R. Horton, Inc. decision from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In D.R. Horton, the NLRB ruled for the first time that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) bans employers from including class action waivers
In 1982, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States that employers and employees cannot settle claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) unless (1) the settlement is supervised by the U.S. Secretary of Labor, or (2) a court enters a stipulated…..
With a few casual sentences, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has called into question the standards used by most district courts for the past three decades to certify collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is Espenscheid v. DirectSAT USA, LLC, No. 12-1943 (7th Cir……
In a prior post, we wrote about a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals enforcing a private settlement agreement that released claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), even though the agreement did not receive court approval and was forged without Department of Labor (DOL) supervision……
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently enforced an agreement settling claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), even though the settling parties never received approval from the district court, and the agreement was forged without U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) supervision. Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Productions, LLC,…..