Arb Going Back To Cali

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently blocked a California law that prohibited employers from requiring their workers to resolve legal disputes in private arbitration, ruling that it conflicts with federal law. A panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 51 with respect to arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Since 2020, California was first to ban mandatory arbitration of all employment-related disputes in the wake of the #MeToo movement. New York and New Jersey similarly passed laws prohibiting mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment and discrimination claims, but California's statute was much broader. Employers were prohibited from requiring individuals to sign as a condition of employment or employment-related benefits arbitration agreements concerning disputes arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or Labor Code. In affirming the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, a majority of the Ninth Circuit panel used U.S. Supreme Court precedent that states rules burdening the formation of arbitration agreements are an obstacle to legislative intent of and preempted by the FAA. The court also noted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First and Fourth Circuits reached similar conclusions when confronted with state laws that attempted to prevent parties from entering arbitration agreements. The court rejected arguments from the State of California that it should sever clauses that were deemed preempted by the FAA and leave the remainder of the law intact. The court found AB 51 could not be dissected as the statute’s provisions all work together to burden the formation of arbitration agreements and there was no authority in the legislation to sever the penalty portions of the law. If the State of California does not get a rehearing en banc or pursue further appeal, the matter will return to the district court to proceed for a final determination on the legality of AB 51. See reporting here-- https://bit.ly/3ZtxpoU and https://tinyurl.com/mvvfn6um and latest decision here-- https://tinyurl.com/54u4jukp

SCOTUS Upholds Employer Arbitration Requirement

This month, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer can lawfully require employees to arbitrate as a condition of employment any related disputes on an individual basis and to waive their right to participate in a class action suit or class arbitration. The case involved an effort by workers to file a class action suit against an employer for violating the federal minimum wage law. The employer sought to dismiss the case because it insisted as a condition of employment that the employees waive their ability to go to court or be part of any class action. Rather, any dispute had to be resolved out of court in a private arbitration. The case, Epic Systems v. Lewis, arose from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Companion cases, Ernst & Young v. Morris, from the Ninth Circuit and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil, from the Fifth Circuit were argued as a trio before the Supreme Court which decided they differed only in detail, not substance. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements between employers and employees according to their terms, even when the agreements provide only for arbitration through “individualized proceedings” rather than a class. In this holding, the Court refused to read the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to prohibit arbitration agreements requiring individualized arbitration as an impermissible restriction on employee rights under the NLRA to “engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of … mutual aid or protection,” 29 U.S.C. § 157, holding that Section 7 of the act “focuses on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively” and “does not even hint at a wish to displace" the FAA. The Court stated the FAA and the NLRA have long coexisted (since 1925 and 1935 respectively) and found the suggestion they might conflict something quite new. The Court reasoned that the employees’ theory ran “afoul of the usual rule that Congress does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions..." See more in article here-- https://bit.ly/2Jk3e04 and read full opinion here-- https://bit.ly/2rWzAE8

Divided Supreme Court Considers Workplace Arbitration

This week, the Supreme Court attempted to determine how far companies can go in insisting that disputes be resolved in individual arbitrations, rather than in court. The Court considered whether to give employers a powerful tool to bar class actions over workplace issues. The decision on this matter could affect some 25 million employment contracts according to the New York Times. A ruling in favor of employers, Justice Breyer said, could cut out “the entire heart of the New Deal” and undo an understanding of labor relations since the administration of FDR. Earlier cases ruled that companies doing business with consumers may require arbitration and forbid class actions in their contracts. Arbitration clauses with class-action waivers are commonplace in contracts for things like smartphones, credit cards, rental cars and nursing homes. Prior arbitration decisions have been closely divided, with conservative members in the majority. The justices now consider whether they should use a different approach for employment contracts. The answer depends on the interaction of two federal laws: the Federal Arbitration Act, which favors arbitration and the National Labor Relations Act, which protects workers’ rights to engage in “concerted activities.” Workers seeking to sue their employers for overtime pay and the like say the second law prohibits arbitration clauses that require class-action waivers. Reportedly, Justice Kennedy seemed ready to side with employers. Justice Gorsuch asked no questions. Justice Ginsburg said arbitration law was concerned with agreements between merchants of relatively equal bargaining power. The employment contracts at issue in the case, she said, have been forced on workers with "no true liberty of contract." In an unusual fashion, many cases were consolidated for a single oral argument and lawyers for the federal government actually appeared on both sides. Some justices suggested that workers could band together in a limited sense by hiring the same lawyer and filing individual arbitration cases. Justice Kagan suggested that was not good enough. See full article here-- http://nyti.ms/2yTgLUa Watch for decisions in: Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, No. 16-285, Ernst & Young v. Morris, No. 16-300 and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 16-307 which will be available this term here-- http://bit.ly/2yuxv7k