SCOTUS Allows Millions of Transportation Workers to Have Their Day in Court.

In recent decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has largely sided with big business over workers, consumers, and small businesses when victims of wage theft, fraud, and monopolist market abuses[1] band together to prove their case in open court. This past week was a rare exception for potentially millions of transportation workers across the United States.

Brief Background

The FAA generally requires courts to enforce arbitration clauses according to the terms of such clauses, which businesses have forced on individuals in the workplace, in consumer contracts, and in many other contexts (e.g., nursing homes that allegedly cause their residents to die from substandard care). However, Section 1 of the FAA provides an important exception to this general rule, exempting “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” from the otherwise strict enforcement of arbitration agreements. 9 U.S.C. § 1.

Upshot of the New Prime Decision

Writing for an 8-0 majority, Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira contains two key takeaways: (1) transportation workers are entitled to their day in court even if both sides signed an arbitration agreement and the transportation workers are classified (or arguably misclassified) as independent contractors, and (2) before ordering workers, consumers, and others to secret, one-on-one binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), courts still have the power to decide whether any exceptions apply that would allow these groups to have their day in open court.

The Majority’s Reasoning in New Prime

The New Prime majority relied heavily on the text and structure of Sections 1-4 of the FAA to hold that a business cannot take away a court’s authority to decide whether the exception contained in Section 1 applies to a particular dispute. No. 17-340, 2019 WL 189342, at **3-4 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019). The Court noted that Section 3’s mandate to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms is limited by Section 1’s exclusion for “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Id. at *4 (citing 9 U.S.C. § 1).[2] Based on the FAA’s “terms and sequencing” of its statutory provisions, the Court concluded that “a court should decide for itself whether § 1's ‘contracts of employment’ exclusion applies before ordering arbitration.” Id.

Finding that it has authority to review whether the exception in Section 1 applies to Mr. Oliveira’s arbitration agreement with his former employer, the Court went on to address whether Mr. Oliveira’s written agreement with New Prime was a “contract[] of employment” as the term is used in Section 1 of the FAA. Here, the Court determined that the original meaning of “contracts of employment” in 1925 included both the modern idea of an employer/employee relationship and also true independent contractors. Id. at **6-7. The Court swatted down the company’s attempt to argue that the Court should ignore the plain text of the FAA, and instead make from whole cloth a general federal policy of compelling all disputes to arbitration. (“Unable to squeeze more from the statute's text, New Prime is left to appeal to its policy. … By respecting the qualifications of § 1 today, we respect the limits up to which Congress was prepared to go when adopting the Arbitration Act.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Id. at *9.

If you are a transportation worker like the lead plaintiff in the New Prime, Dominic Oliveira,[3] know that you are entitled to your day in court to recover your lost wages and expenses.

---

[1] Justice Kagan’s dissent in this case, Italian Colors, sums up the state of play well:

Here is the nutshell version of this case, unfortunately obscured in the Court's decision. The owner of a small restaurant (Italian Colors) thinks that American Express (Amex) has used its monopoly power to force merchants to accept a form contract violating the antitrust laws. The restaurateur wants to challenge the allegedly unlawful provision (imposing a tying arrangement), but the same contract's arbitration clause prevents him from doing so. That term imposes a variety of procedural bars that would make pursuit of the antitrust claim a fool's errand. So if the arbitration clause is enforceable, Amex has insulated itself from antitrust liability—even if it has in fact violated the law. The monopolist gets to use its monopoly power to insist on a contract effectively depriving its victims of all legal recourse.

And here is the nutshell version of today's opinion, admirably flaunted rather than camouflaged: Too darn bad.

Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 240 (2013) (emph. added).

[2] The Court also drew upon the then-contemporary 1925 legal landscape in which “Congress had already prescribed alternative employment dispute resolution regimes for many transportation workers. And it seems Congress “did not wish to unsettle” those arrangements in favor of whatever arbitration procedures the parties' private contracts might happen to contemplate.” Id.

[3] You can learn more about Mr. Oliveira’s personal story here.

The Supreme Court to Consider Employees' Right to Seek Class-wide Relief

On Friday, January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the consolidated appeals of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young v. Morris, and NLRB v. Murphy Oil. The Court will consider a circuit split regarding whether arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act in the employment context. In Murphy Oil, the Fifth Circuit held that a corporate defendant did not commit unfair labor practices by requiring employees to sign its arbitration agreement, which contained a class action waiver. In Epic and Ernst & Young, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits held otherwise -- that class waivers in arbitration agreements signed by employees violated the National Labor Relations Act because the waivers restricted the workers' right to concerted action. Bryan Schwartz Law blogged about the appellate decisions here and here.

These cases do not dispute that employees may waive their right to proceed with claims against their employer in any forum other than arbitration. Rather, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held that employees cannot waive their right to proceed as a class in any forum. These circuits, as well as the current National Labor Relations Board, agree that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 protects private sector employees' right to concerted action in workplace disputes.

This long-enshrined federally-granted right to concerted action has come under attack since the Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). Concepcion broadly interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 to preempt state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration. While Concepcion was a consumer case, many courts, including the Fifth Circuit, have applied its holding to force employees to proceed with their claims against employers in arbitration, and to do so individually, rather than on a class-wide basis.

The Supreme Court should restore order in the lower courts by clarifying that the National Labor Relations Act protects workers' right to concerted action, that this right is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, and that courts must stop applying Concepcion and its progeny to deny workers the right to proceed as a class in any forum. 

D.R. Horton Rising: The Ninth Circuit Sides with the Seventh Circuit and the National Labor Relations Board on Class Action Waivers, in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP

In the Ninth and Seventh Circuits, employers cannot force

employees to sign class action waivers as a condition of 

employment, because the NLRA provides employees the 

right to vindicate employment rights collectively.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit took sides in a major split within the U.S. Courts of Appeals over the enforceability of class arbitration waivers. In Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 13-16599, Slip. Op. (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that employers violate Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) by requiring employees covered by the NLRA to waive, as a condition of their employment, participation in “concerted activities” such as class and collective actions. (Slip Op. at 1.)

By this holding, the Ninth Circuit joins the Seventh Circuit, which in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016) adopted the National Labor Relations Board (“The Board”) position in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012). Under this line of authority, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not mandate enforcement of a contract that waives the substantive federal right to engage in concerted action established in Section 7 of the NLRA. (Slip Op. at p. 18-19.) Bryan Schwartz Law blogged in detail about the Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. decision, here.

In Morris, two employees filed a class and collective action alleging that their employer had misclassified workers as exempt and deprived them of overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California labor laws. As a condition of employment, the employees were required to sign contracts containing a “concerted action wavier” that obligated them (1) to pursue legal claims against their employer exclusively through arbitration and (2) to arbitrate individually in “separate proceedings.” Based on these agreements, the employer moved to compel the employees to arbitrate their claims individually. The U.S. District Court granted the employer’s motion. (Slip Op. at p. 4-5.)

The Ninth Circuit reversed, reviewing the decision to compel arbitration de novo. Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas explained in the opinion:

This case turns on a well-established principal: employees have the right to pursue work-related legal claims together. 29 U.S.C. § 157; Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 566 (1978). Concerted activity – the right of employees to act together – is the essential substantive right established by the NLRA. 29 U.S.C. § 157. Ernst & Young interfered with that right by requiring its employees to resolve all of their legal claims in “separate proceedings.” Accordingly the concerted action waiver violates the NLRA and cannot be enforced.

(Id. at p. 6.)

The Ninth Circuit explained that the FAA does not dictate a contrary result. (Id. at 14.) While the FAA creates a “federal policy favoring arbitration” clause enforcement, the Act contains a savings clause that prohibits enforcement of arbitration agreements that defeat substantive federal rights, including the right to engage in concerted activity under the NLRA. (Id. at 15, 26.) In Morris, employees’ waiver was illegal not because it required the employees to pursue their claims in arbitration, but rather, because they could not do so in concert. (Id. at p. 16.)

Other circuit courts have taken a contrary position, enforcing employers concerted action waivers under the FAA. See Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC v. N.L.R.B., 824 F.3d 772, 776 (8th Cir. 2016); Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015); Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (8th Cir. 2013); D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344, 361 (5th Cir. 2013); Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 726 F.3d 290, 297 n.8 (2d Cir. 2013).

As more circuits choose sides on whether class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable, Supreme Court review becomes an inevitability. 

The High Court would also be wise to resolve a disagreement between the Ninth and Seventh Circuits regarding such waivers. In the Seventh Circuit, any “[c]ontracts that stipulate away employees’ Section 7 rights . . . are unenforceable.” Epic, 823 F.3d at 1155. The Ninth Circuit precedent is narrower, making such contracts enforceable if employment is not conditioned on agreeing to the clause. (Slip. Op. 11, n. 4.) For example, if an employee has the opportunity to opt-out of a class action waiver and keep his or her job, but chooses not to, that waiver would be enforceable by the employer in the Ninth Circuit. (Id. (citing Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2014))). The Seventh Circuit provides a clearer rule, one that better comports with the purposes of the NLRA, and one that the Supreme Court should adopt.

For now, workers in the Ninth and Seventh Circuits, as well as their advocates, should take note that employers cannot force employees to sign class action waivers as a condition of employment, because Epic and Morris tell us that the NLRA provides employees with the right to vindicate their employment rights collectively. 

Arbitration Class Action Waivers Challenged: Seventh Circuit Sides with The National Labor Relations Board on D.R. Horton, in Lewis V. Epic Systems

On May 26, 2016, in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., No. 15-2997, 2016 WL 3029464 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016), the Seventh Circuit, fueling a circuit split, sided in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) position in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), holding that employers violate Section 7 of National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by requiring employees covered by the Act to waive, as a condition of their employment, participation in class or collective actions.  Under Section 7 of the NLRA, employers are prohibited from interfering with employees’ right “to engage in…concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

In Epic Systems, Lewis, a technical writer, filed a suit in federal court in Wisconsin on behalf of himself and other technical writers alleging that his employer – Epic Systems Corporation – had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by misclassifying workers as exempt and depriving them of overtime.  In response, Epic-Systems moved to dismiss Lewis’s claim and compel individual arbitration because he had signed an arbitration agreement that waived his “right to participate in or receive money or any other relief from any class, collective, or representative proceeding.”  Lewis, however, responded that the agreement’s class and collective action waiver was unenforceable because it interfered with his right to engage in concerted activities under Section 7 of the NLRA.  The district court agreed with Lewis’s arguments and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Chief Judge Diane Wood explains in Epic Systems that “there is ‘no doubt that illegal promises will not be enforced in cases controlled by the federal law.’”  Epic Sys. Corp., 2016 WL 3029464, at *6 (quoting Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72, 77 (1982)).  As reasoned in D.R. Horton, Section 7 grants employees the substantive right to act “concertedly for mutual aid or protection” and mandatory arbitration agreements that bar an employee’s ability to bring or join class or collective workplace claims restrict this substantive right. 

D.R. Horton adversaries claim that the Board and now the Seventh Circuit have expressly rejected the Supreme Court’s clear instructions on how to interpret the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which says that absent some specific “contrary congressional command” as to whether a claim can be arbitrated, the FAA “requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms.”  CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S.Ct. 665, 673 (2012).  However, as Chief Judge Wood explains in Epic Systems, “[b]efore we rush to decide whether one statute eclipses another, we must stop to see if the two statutes conflict at all.”  Epic Sys. Corp., 2016 WL 3029464, at *5.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that “when two statutes are capable of co-existence ... it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.”  Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 533 (1995); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 381 (1996) (implied repeal should be found only when there is an “‘irreconcilable conflict’ between the two federal statutes at issue”) (quoting Kremer v. Chem. Const. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 468 (1982)).  Epic Systems elucidates that the FAA and NLRA are reconcilable by way of the FAA’s savings clause, which provides that if “the provision at issue is unlawful under Section 7 of the NLRA, it is illegal, and meets the criteria of the FAA’s savings clause for non-enforcement,” i.e., that an arbitration agreement’s conflict with federal law is grounds for invalidation.  Epic Sys., 2016 WL 3029464, at *6.  When Congress drafted the FAA, it anticipated that conflicts could arise between it and other Federal laws, and by including the savings clause, it created a means of harmonizing the FAA with laws such as the NLRA. 

The Seventh Circuit’s decision splits with last year’s Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), in which the Fifth Circuit held the exact opposite, ruling that the employer did not commit unfair labor practices by requiring employees to sign its arbitration agreement or seeking to enforce that agreement in federal district court.  The Fifth Circuit rejected the Board’s position, but the Court did not profess to have the last word on the matter.  The Fifth Circuit wrote, “[a]n administrative agency’s need to acquiesce to an earlier circuit court decision when deciding similar issues in later cases will be affected by whether the new decision will be reviewed in that same circuit…We do not celebrate the Board's failure to follow our D.R. Horton reasoning, but neither do we condemn its nonacquiescence.”  Murphy Oil, 808 F.3d at 1018 (referencing Samuel Estreicher & Richard L. Revesz, Nonacquiescence by Federal Administrative Agencies, 98 YALE L.J. 679, 735–43 (1989)). 

The circuit split on the enforceability of class action waivers has the legal community reeling.  While D.R. Horton, Epic Systems, and the present judicial climate have emboldened the plaintiffs’-side employment law bar nationwide, the debate continues to arouse long-held sentiments that workers’ rights should be subjugated in the name of commerce and contractual rights.  The Supreme Court will likely have to address the conflict presented in D.R. Horton, Murphy Oil, and Epic Systems, and people in the labor and employment law community are on the edge waiting to hear who ends up in the seat formerly held by Justice Antonin Scalia.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari Review of Bridgestone, Declining for a Second time to Consider a Challenge to PAGA

PAGA stays on track after Bridgestone

cert petition denied.

On June 1, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC v. Brown (“Bridgestone”), 2015 WL 86028, No. 14-790. The Bridgestone petition challenged the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles (“Iskanian”) (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, holding that representative claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code section 2698, et seq., are not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and may not be compelled to individual arbitration since they, like qui tam claims, are brought on behalf of the state. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider a petition for certiorari of the Iskanian decision itself.  By declining to accept a second challenge to Iskanian, the High Court has given employee advocates a reason to feel renewed confidence that they may proceed in court with PAGA actions, whether or not their clients are otherwise subject to individual arbitration agreements.

PAGA permits an employee to recover civil penalties for wage violations on behalf of California’s Labor Workforce Development Agency, for redistribution to the State and all aggrieved employees. As Bryan Schwartz Law has discussed in previous blog posts, Iskanian holds that employees cannot waive the right to bring representative actions under PAGA in a court of law by signing mandatory arbitration agreements. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1740 and its progeny interpret the FAA as permitting employees to give up the right to bring class actions asserting other claims by signing agreements to individually arbitrate those claims. However, in Iskanian, the California Supreme Court reasoned that PAGA is an enforcement mechanism designed to carry out California’s interest in ensuring compliance with state wage laws, and not merely a private litigant’s claim. Therefore, while employers may argue under AT&T Mobility that employees have signed away their rights to bring ordinary class claims alleging wage violations, employees’ representative PAGA claims remain unaffected.

On June 3, 2015 the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in three cases presenting questions of whether the FAA requires enforcement of PAGA waivers. See Hopkins v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, No. 13-56126; Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 13-55184; and Sierra v. Oakley Sales Corp., No. 13-55891. Like the U.S. Supreme Court when presented with Iskanian and Bridgestone – the Ninth Circuit should not interfere with California’s right to enforce its own wage laws. Stay tuned.