Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

United States Supreme Court Allows Class Action Waivers

By D. Charles Stohler & Alan H. Bowie, Jr. on June 6, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and two related cases, that class action waiver provisions contained in arbitration agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act. This decision is a significant favorable development for employers. Justice Gorsuch, writing in a 5 to 4 decision, held that although the public policy is debatable, the Federal Arbitration Act allows arbitration agreements with such waiver provisions to be enforced despite claims that “concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act includes the right to file class actions. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Ginsburg called the decision “egregiously wrong.”

What Does This Mean?

 As we alerted you previously, this is a hot button issue that provides key insight into the current Supreme Court’s view on arbitration and the National Labor Relations Act. The decision continues a long line of cases favoring arbitration. Stated simply, it means that employers may require employees to sign valid arbitration agreements prohibiting class actions as a condition of employment.

Under these waiver provisions, it will be more difficult for employees to challenge employment practice violations through the usually more expensive and burdensome class action litigation process. (The cases before the Court were alleged wage-hour violations under the FLSA.) Instead, such challenges will be decided individually on the merits through what is generally regarded as a more expedient and efficient arbitration process. Critics of the Court’s decision argue that this will discourage claims, lead to inconsistent decisions and result in less protection of employee rights. Proponents argue otherwise: the more efficient arbitration process could result in more claims being filed. Proponents also note that the costly and burdensome class action process was being misused to leverage large settlements from employers.

In addition to the major impact this decision could have on the employment law landscape, the decision also is significant because it foreshadows the current Court’s more limited view on deference to administrative agencies, such as the NLRB, under the so-called “Chevron deference” doctrine.

What Should Employers Do?

Employers should revisit the pros and cons of requiring their employees to arbitrate employment claims. The Court’s decision in Epic Systems is a major factor, among others, in favor of binding arbitration.  However, other countervailing factors should be considered, such as reduced chances of prevailing on dispositive motions and limited appellate review. Yet there is no question that most large employers could benefit from limiting their exposure to class actions, particularly given the recent surge in class or collective wage-hour litigation. As a caveat, employers should recognize that there are essential components that must be included to establish a legally enforceable, mandatory arbitration procedure.

Given the controversy surrounding the Court’s decision and the policy questions it raises, state legislatures might seek to minimize or undermine the Court’s decision. We will continue to monitor this area and update you as the law develops. At the same time, we continue to work with clients as they modify policies in response to this important development.

Photo of D. Charles Stohler D. Charles Stohler

For approximately thirty years Chuck Stohler has been the lead partner in Carmody’s labor and employment practice.  For at least the last ten years, Chuck’s practice has increasingly focused on alternative dispute resolution, where he regularly serves as a neutral in mediations, arbitrations…

For approximately thirty years Chuck Stohler has been the lead partner in Carmody’s labor and employment practice.  For at least the last ten years, Chuck’s practice has increasingly focused on alternative dispute resolution, where he regularly serves as a neutral in mediations, arbitrations, fact-findings and investigations. Examples include:

  • Conducted high-level investigations for Fortune 50 and regional companies, as well as major non-profit institutions in Connecticut and nationally.  Investigations involved C-Suite executives or groups of employees on matters relating to discrimination, harassment, Equal Pay Act issues, contract claims, whistleblower and employee violence.
  • Mediated employment disputes, including FLSA and wage hour individual and collective action matters, discrimination, common law actions, executive compensation, contract, non-compete and severance disputes.
  • Conducted investigations for public and quasi-public entities including Towns, Police Departments, Hospitals and Boards of Education into allegations such as race discrimination, sexual harassment, and financial improprieties.
  • Arbitrated harassment, discrimination (e.g., sex, race, disability), wage-hour and contract employment claims, including class actions.

Chuck is a member of the American Arbitration Association Employment Mediator and Arbitration panels as well as a panelist on the American Dispute Resolution Center list of Mediators and Arbitrators. He writes and speaks frequently on ADR topics.

Read more about D. Charles StohlerEmailChuck's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Alan H. Bowie, Jr. Alan H. Bowie, Jr.

Alan H. Bowie, Jr. is a member of Carmody’s Labor and Employment group. During law school, Alan served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and judicial extern to the Honorable Mark A.

Alan H. Bowie, Jr. is a member of Carmody’s Labor and Employment group. During law school, Alan served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and judicial extern to the Honorable Mark A. Davis, Judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Read more about Alan H. Bowie, Jr.Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Carmody @ Work
  • Organization:
    Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo