In the first post-Epic Systems decision regarding arbitration agreements, the NLRB has underscored just how pro-arbitration courts and regulators have become. In Cordúa Restaurants, the Board put its stamp of approval on employers revising arbitration provisions even after employees file a claim. In doing so, employers can exercise more control as to how employees must bring their claims and—particularly, as in the case of Cordúa Restaurants, by limiting class and collective actions.

FACTS

In Cordúa Restaurants, employees, as a condition of their employment, had to sign arbitration agreements waiving “their right to file, participate or proceed in class or collective actions.” Despite this agreement, some employees still filed collective wage and hour actions in federal court. Additional employees began “opting-in” to these collective actions.

In response, the employer revised its arbitration agreement so that employees waived their right to opt-in to a collective action. The agreement was revised to say “I agree that I cannot file or opt-in to a collective action under this Agreement, unless agreed upon by me and the Company in writing.” Employees had to sign this new arbitration agreement as a condition of employment.


Continue Reading

As we reported on June 21, New York blew the lid off 30 years of sexual harassment and discrimination law by passing legislation that, among other things, bars mandatory arbitration of all claims of discrimination. That earthquake was followed by a substantial aftershock: according to a federal court, that provision of the state law doesn’t square with federal law, which specifically permits arbitration of these claims.

This latest monkey-wrench was thrown into the gears just last week by federal district court Judge Denise Cote when she held that New York’s arbitration law prohibiting arbitration of sexual harassment claims (effective as of July 2018 and reported on by this blog last year) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and is therefore invalid. This is the first case deciding the merits of this arbitration exclusion. And although Judge Cote didn’t formally rule on the more general, brand-new bar on arbitration of all discrimination claims (harassment or not), she observed in a footnote that the more general bar suffers from the same problem and is probably preempted by federal law, too.

This decision will likely result in a failure-to-launch of the arbitration prohibitions in this latest round of legislation. But for now, here’s the unsettling message for employers navigating the ever-shifting landscape of discrimination law obligations: the new provisions of New York law barring mandatory arbitration of all employment discrimination claims will be struck down, but for the time being, you can’t count on it.


Continue Reading

If you’re waiting for a reversal of the trend at the Supreme Court to limit employers’ ability to insist on arbitration instead of litigation, or of the trend limiting class claims, keep waiting.

The Supreme Court continues to limit the ability of employees to pursue class arbitration against their employers. The latest salvo—the Court’s decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela—comes on the heels of last year’s Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which found that class action waivers in individual arbitration agreements between employers and employees are enforceable. Taking the next natural step in limiting class actions, Lamps Plus now requires arbitration agreements to specifically permit class claims; if an arbitration agreement leaves the issue unaddressed, no class claim is available at all.


Continue Reading