Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60913/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60913-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citi Trends, Incorporated
Petitioner Cross-Respondent
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent Cross-Petitioner

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60913

Summary Calendar

CITI TRENDS, INCORPORATED, 

 Petitioner/Cross-Respondent

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 

 Respondent/Cross-Petitioner

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application

for Enforcement of an Order of the 

National Labor Relations Board

NLRB No. 10-CA-133697

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A panel of the National Labor Relations Board declared Petitioner/CrossRespondent Citi Trends, Incorporated’s Mandatory Arbitration Agreement 

unlawful because it “requires employees to waive their right to maintain class 

or collective actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial.” Citi Trends 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60913 Document: 00513631270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2016
No. 15-60913

2

petitions for review of the Board’s order. The Board has filed a crossapplication for enforcement of its order.

The Board concedes, as it must, that its order contravenes our published 

decisions in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB1 and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB,2

which hold that “an employer does not engage in unfair labor practices by 

maintaining and enforcing an arbitration agreement prohibiting employee 

class or collective actions and requiring employment-related claims to be 

resolved through individual arbitration.”3 Although the Board asks us to 

reconsider our holdings in D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil, this Court is bound by 

its prior published decisions.4

Citi Trends’s petition for review of the Board’s order is therefore 

GRANTED. The Board’s cross-application for enforcement of its order is hereby 

DENIED.

 

1 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013).

2 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015).

3 Id. at 1016 (citing D.R. Horton, 737 F.3d at 362).

4 Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. NLRB, 633 F. App’x 613, 615 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he 

Board vigorously . . . urges this court to reconsider its decision in D.R. Horton. But because 

this court’s rule of orderliness prevents one panel from overruling the decision of a prior 

panel, we simply note that no intervening change in the law permits reconsideration of our 

precedent.” (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).

 Case: 15-60913 Document: 00513631270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2016