On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court held class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements do not violate the National Board Relations Act (“NLRA”).

Employers and employees nationwide had been eagerly awaiting this decision.  Monday’s decision is a major victory for employers, given that class action lawsuits and collective actions are often costly and create public relations issues for employers. 

The Court’s decision concludes a federal Circuit Court split that started years ago.  The Ninth Circuit created an internal split. This inner-circuit split deepened a nationwide debate. The Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have ruled that class action waivers do not interfere with employees’ NLRA rights, whereas the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have ruled that such class action waivers violate the NLRA. This dissonance prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to hear three consolidated cases on the subject: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.. The high court heard oral arguments in these three cases on October 2, 2017, and issued its decision on May 21, 2018.  

In upholding the class action waivers in arbitration agreements, the Supreme Court continued its practice of upholding arbitration agreements, again stating that they must be enforced according to their terms unless Congress has directly instructed otherwise. This decision allows employers to continue employees to waive class action and collective action rights as part of their arbitration agreements. 

For more information on decisions discussed in this blog, contact one of our Sioux Falls lawyers, Sioux City lawyers, or Omaha lawyers! Looking for more content? Visit our Trial Law Review blog!


Subscribe Our Blog

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. By visiting this website, blog, or post you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Goosmann Law Firm attorneys and website publisher. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Goosmann Law Firm, PLC, or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.