Source: http://www.elinfonet.com/fedarticles/3/1
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:26:29+00:00

Document:
On March 14, 2019, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued two opinion letters of interest to many employers—one concerning compensation for non-exempt employees who perform community service work and another concerning certain employers’ efforts to expand leave entitlements under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims.
In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019).
In one of the most significant Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) appellate decisions in recent years, on February 21, 2019, a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that “district courts may not send notice to an employee with a valid arbitration agreement unless the record shows that nothing in the agreement would prohibit that employee from participating in the collective action.” The Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 18-20825 (5th Cir.) represents the first U.S. Court of Appeals to address this important issue related to the issuance of notice in FLSA collective actions where a portion of the proposed collective is subject to an arbitration agreement.
Executive Summary: Employers in the restaurant industry have seen an increasing trend of litigation over reimbursement policies for delivery drivers. For example, on February 12, 2019, three former delivery drivers for Papa John’s filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging Papa John’s failed to adequately reimburse its delivery drivers for “vehicular wear and tear, gas and other driving-related expenses.” In Hubbard et al. v. Papa John’s International, Inc., the plaintiffs allege Papa John’s reimbursement policy, which paid a flat fee “per delivery” (rather than the IRS mileage reimbursement rate), resulted in drivers earning less than the minimum wage mandated under Kentucky, Colorado, and Missouri law. Two plaintiffs in this case are also class members in a New York federal class and collective action, Durling et al. v. Papa John’s International, Inc., which alleges, among other claims, similar violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware law. That case is currently pending.
The monetary value of the top 10 class action case settlements dropped by more than 50 percent in 2018 and the value of the top 10 government litigation settlements fell by 74 percent despite an increase in the number of workplace class action certifications, according to the 2019 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report.
On the last day of the year, we take a look back at some highlights and our most-read employment class action articles of 2018.
Below is a link to the latest issue of the Jackson Lewis Class Action Trends Report. This report is published on a quarterly basis by our firm’s class action practice group in conjunction with Wolters Kluwer. We hope you will find this issue to be informative and insightful. Using our considerable experience in defending hundreds of class actions over the last few years alone, we have generated another comprehensive, informative and timely piece with practice insights and tactical tips to consider concerning employment law class actions. We hope you enjoy!
On October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. At issue in Lamps Plus is what standard should be applied in determining whether parties have agreed to submit claims to class arbitration. The arbitration agreement between Lamps Plus and one of its employees did not contain an explicit waiver prohibiting arbitration of class or collective claims. The Ninth Circuit held that the arbitration agreement was ambiguous as to whether the parties agreed to submit class claims to arbitration. The Court applied a California contract-law principle that any ambiguity is to be construed against the drafter, and therefore held that the arbitration agreement permitted arbitration of the employee’s class claims.
Contracting Around Class Actions, a Win for Employers!
In O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27343 (9th Cir. 2018), a unanimous panel in the Ninth Circuit found that Uber’s arbitration agreements did not violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (“NLRA”) and the question of arbitrability was designated to the arbitrator. The ruling provided a major victory to Uber, requiring each plaintiff to separately arbitrate his or her claims.
An Illinois District Court recently denied certification of a class of female physicians claiming that their employer’s pay practices unlawfully discriminated against women in violation of Title VII, the Illinois Equal Pay Act, and the Illinois Civil Rights Act (Ahad v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University).
A California federal judge recently certified a class of at least 843 Cinemark workers who allege Cinemark, a movie theater chain, failed to properly list overtime rates on employee wage statements, notwithstanding the fact that the purported class representative, Silken Brown, had settled her individual claim during the pending litigation. In opposing class certification, Cinemark raised challenges to Brown’s typicality as to the class and adequacy to represent the class as a result of Brown’s individual settlement.
In a natural extension of the Supreme Court’s recent conclusion that the NLRA does not preclude the use of class or collective action waivers in employment-related arbitration agreements, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed that such waivers are likewise permitted under the FLSA. Gaffers v. Kelly Services, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22613 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018). In so holding, the Sixth Circuit followed the lead of the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). The Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Two female former Nike employees have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the sportswear manufacturer alleging gender discrimination and a hostile work environment. The lawsuit is the latest development following a New York Times report published in March that Nike fostered a culture of sexual harassment and unfair treatment of female employees.
On the heels of the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, which held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not bar class or collective action waivers in arbitration agreements, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals took up the corollary question of whether the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and its specific collective action mechanism, would invalidate arbitration agreements with collective action waivers. Relying on the lessons learned from the Supreme Court in Epic, the 6th Circuit just held that the FLSA likewise did not bar collective action waivers in arbitration agreements (Gaffers v. Kelly Services, Inc.).
Below is a link to the latest issue of the Jackson Lewis Class Action Trends Report. This report is published on a quarterly basis by our firm’s class action practice group in conjunction with Wolters Kluwer. We hope you will find this issue to be informative and insightful. Using our considerable experience in defending hundreds of class actions over the last few years alone, we have generated another comprehensive, informative and timely piece with practice insights and tactical tips to consider concerning employment law class actions.
The United States Supreme Court has spoken – class and collective action waivers are lawful. The Court’s May 21 decision overturns the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) position that these waivers violate employee rights and resolves a split among federal appellate courts. Employers should run, not walk, and include such provisions in their respective employment agreements!
The final amendments to the Federal Civil Rules of Procedure, including amendments to Rule 23 class actions, are waiting for approval from Congress. The primary changes to Rule 23 affect the class action notice and settlement processes. The amendments acknowledge advancements in technology and the popularity of social media, while formalizing procedural and substantive notice and approval requirements already being employed in some federal courts.
On June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, addressing a split in the federal circuit courts of appeal, arising from differing applications of the equitable tolling rules articulated in two prior Supreme Court decisions, American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker (1983). In China Agritech, the Court examined whether, following denial of class certification in a putative class action, a would-be class member may commence a new class action beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations, “in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit,” as permitted in American Pipe, or filing an individual action, as permitted under Crown, Cork. The Court answered in the negative: equitable tolling does not apply to save subsequent class actions from the applicable statute of limitations.
Once class action certification has been denied, a putative class member may not start a new class action beyond the applicable statute of limitations, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432 (June 11, 2018). Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted a petition for review of a data breach lawsuit addressing the issue of whether parties can pursue a class arbitration when the language in the arbitration agreement does not explicitly allow for such, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela , No. 17-988, certiorari granted April 30, 2018. The Court will have the opportunity to clarify its 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) in which the Court ruled that parties cannot be forced into class arbitration, “unless there is contractual basis for concluding [they] agreed to do so”.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision on May 21, 2018, ruling that class and collective action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and do not violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The 5-4 decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and two other cases consolidated with Epic Systems, allows employers to require workers to arbitrate legal claims on an individual basis, in effect prohibiting class or collective cases.
The United States Supreme Court is taking another bite at the arbitration waiver apple. In addition to its landmark decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, where the Supreme Court held that class and collective action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court has granted cert to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Varela v. Lamp Plus, Inc. and will decide whether workers can arbitrate on a class-wide basis where the agreement in question is silent on class arbitration.
Some of you may remember that back in 2015, we published an article entitled Arbitration of ERISA Claims – Yes You Can! A link to that article can be found here. In that article, we suggested that one key reason for adding ERISA claims to your arbitration agreement was to avoid class actions through the inclusion of a class action waiver in the arbitration agreement. Particularly on the pension side, ERISA class actions can involve millions of dollars of exposure and litigation costs.
Companies may compel their employees to arbitrate workplace disputes individually rather than as part of a class action, the US Supreme Court has ruled. The Court's 5-4 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis broke down along partisan lines and could affect an estimated 25 million employment contracts.
This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in three consolidated cases pending before it (NLRB v. Murphy Oil Co.; Epic Systems Corp. v Lewis; Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris) on the issue of whether a class action waiver provision in an employment arbitration agreement violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and is, thereby, unenforceable.
Executive Summary: Yesterday, the Supreme Court, in a strongly divided 5-4 ruling, upheld mandatory arbitration agreements prohibiting employees from bringing employment claims on a class or collective basis. That decision, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, is available here. This long-awaited decision is one of the most important in employment law in the past several years. As the thirty-page dissent made clear, however, depending on the make-up of a new Congress, we may see legislation that reverses this ruling. Nevertheless, the Court’s ruling is straightforward, expected and the clear law of the land going forward.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the validity of arbitration clauses in individual employment contracts. The decision, referred to here as “Epic Systems,” consolidated three separate cases-- Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young, LLP v. Morris, and NLRB v. Murphy Oil, USA. At issue was the question of whether employers could require that employment disputes be settled through individual arbitration or whether waivers of the ability to proceed with a class or collective action necessarily violate the command of entirely different statutes that allow employees to engage in collective or concerted activity. In a 5 to 4 holding, the Court affirmed that such arbitration provisions are valid and enforceable.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) has long permitted employers to require employees to agree to arbitrate legal claims that may arise out of their employment. Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled that this extends to class and collective actions.
The United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that employment agreements forcing workers to forgo pursuing class action claims are legal and do not violate the National Labor Relations Act. Specifically, the court held that arbitration agreements that include class waiver provisions as a condition of employment do not violate federal labor law.
The Supreme Court has weighed in: class and collective action waivers in arbitration agreements are lawful and must be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Court’s decision ends a circuit split and overturns the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) position that class and collective action waivers violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Ever since the NLRB’s 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, courts have wrangled with the enforceability of class action waivers and the interaction between the NLRA and the FAA. The Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (Epic) brings an end to the dispute.1 In a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court held the FAA requires arbitration agreements to be enforced on the same grounds as any other contract, and the NLRA, which was enacted after the FAA, contains no contrary congressional command excluding class action waivers from the FAA’s mandate.
Class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a much-anticipated decision in three critical cases. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 16-307 (May 21, 2018).
To the relief of employers across the country, the Supreme Court today ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are, in fact, enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The decision in the three consolidated cases—Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis; Ernst & Young, LLP v. Morris; and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.—maintains what had long been the status quo and halts the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) crusade to invalidate mandatory class waivers. What do employers need to know about today’s monumental decision, and what adjustments can you make to capitalize on the Court’s ruling?
n May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States settled the contentious class action waiver issue that has riled courts for the past six years. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Relying heavily on the text of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and “a congressional command requiring us to enforce, not override, the terms of the arbitration agreements before us,” the Court ruled that the FAA instructs “federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms—including terms providing for individualized proceedings.” The Court also reasoned that neither the FAA’s savings clause nor the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) contravenes this conclusion. Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 16–285, 16–300, 16–307 (May 21, 2018).
Arbitrating Class Actions – Does Arbitration Bind Employees Who Do Not Opt-in?
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments last week to determine whether an arbitrator’s award in a Title VII class action applies only to the 254 employees who are named plaintiffs or otherwise opted in to the class, or whether it extends to all 70,000 similarly situated employees. (Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., Case No. 18-153 (2d Cir.)). The Second Circuit’s decision could have a huge impact on employers whose arbitration agreements are silent on arbitrability of class actions claims (as in this case), because it raises the stakes in a forum where arbitrators are not bound to follow the law and their decisions are not appealable except in extremely narrow circumstances.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has lowered the bar when it comes to the type of evidence plaintiffs need to present in order to have their claims certified as a class action. The federal appeals court panel ruled that courts are permitted to certify class actions based on evidence that is not even admissible at trial. The May 3 ruling will make it easier for class claimants to advance their claims against employers, and should spur employers and their defense counsel to adjust their litigation strategy accordingly.
In a 49-page opinion issued last week, Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class certification to a group of women alleging that Goldman Sachs systemically and pervasively discriminated against female professional employees in violation of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law.
As discussed on our blog late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to China Agritech, Inc., a fertilizer manufacturer, from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., 857 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2017). (See our earlier post here). In reviewing Resh, the Court will consider whether its American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) ruling tolls statutes of limitation to allow previously absent class members to bring a subsequent class action outside of the applicable limitations period. In other words, whether its American Pipe ruling applies only to subsequent individual claims or if it extends more broadly to successive class actions. The Court held argument on this issue earlier this week.
In a “major blow to multistate class actions,” according to the dissenting opinion in Espinosa v. Ahearn (In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.) 2018 U.S.App.LEXIS 1626 (January 23, 2018), the Ninth Circuit vacated a class action settlement after more than six years of litigation.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana recently decided a case highlighting the importance of clear employer policies when it comes to wage payment issues.
Since September, stories of sexual harassment have dominated the headlines. In what USA Today dubbed the “Weinstein Effect,” workplaces of all types and size have been seeing employees step forward to take part in the #MeToo movement by shining light on abuses of power by companies’ leadership. The increased focus on sexual harassment has created a surge in discrimination lawsuits and government investigations, with almost no industry being immune.
The monetary value of the top workplace class action settlements rose dramatically in 2017, according to an annual report by Seyfarth Shaw that tracks and analyzes class action litigation data. The report, issued January 10, reviewed significant class action rulings involving employment discrimination, wage and hour law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and government enforcement.
First, Deflategate. Now, “Ticket-gate?” Stirring in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, a putative class action takes aim at an unsafe football field, a cancelled preseason game, and over a million dollars in alleged consumer class damages. The case is Herrick v. National Football League, et al. (N.D. Ohio, Case No. 5:17-cv-00472-CAB).
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to China Agritech, Inc., a fertilizer manufacturer, from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., 857 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2017). In reviewing Resh, the Court will consider whether its American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) ruling tolls statutes of limitation to allow previously absent class members to bring a subsequent class action outside of the applicable limitations period. In other words, whether its American Pipe ruling applies only to subsequent individual claims or if it extends more broadly to successive class actions.
The latest target of the plaintiff’s overly-aggressive tactics—a company’s use of recruitment ads in hiring employees. All industries and all forms of advertising are potentially coming under attack, including social media platforms and websites dedicated to employee recruiting. Specifically, the plaintiff’s bar has repeatedly targeted certain advertisements on social media sites that encourage individuals to apply for jobs at their company, using information obtained from user profiles.
On November 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a plaintiff bringing a putative class action under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) could not establish an injury-in-fact and therefore lacked Article III standing, further adding to the legacy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Spokeo v. Robins and providing companies with additional firepower to fight against claims of bare procedural statutory violations of privacy statutes where individuals suffer no actual harm or risk of real harm.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered two class action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which involved the same class and allegations and the question of whether additional parties could intervene in a pending case. In Technology Training Associates, Inc., et al. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc. filed a complaint on behalf of a putative class, alleging that Buccaneers Limited Partnership was responsible for unsolicited faxes that violated the TCPA.
In a mixed ruling, a California state court judge in Villegas v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., Case No. BC505344, issued a decision last week denying certification of eight subclasses of amusement park workers, but indicating she would consider certification of several others pending further briefing.
In two recent rulings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) “does not confer a substantive right to participate in class or collective action litigation.” Class or collective actions allow large groups of employees to collectively pursue similar employment-related lawsuits in court. Such actions are popular with the plaintiffs’ bar, and dreaded by employers because of the increased defense costs and potential liability from such litigation.
Last week, a U.S. District Court Judge in Illinois ruled that an arbitration agreement signed by an Uber driver required arbitration on the issue of whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors before the driver could proceed with a wage and hour class action lawsuit against Uber. The Court’s decision raises an important exception to current law in the Seventh Circuit, holding that class action waivers in arbitration agreements with employees are invalid and unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Class certification would have been granted in Soares v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 3:15-cv-04918 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2017), but for the allegedly misclassified independent contractors’ decision to deliver, or not deliver, the goods themselves.
On July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States released the October 2017 term’s calendar for oral arguments, including the date it will hear oral argument in the three consolidated class action waiver cases that are currently before the Court. The term will start on October 2, 2017, with the justices hearing a total of one hour of oral argument in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.
In January, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300, consolidating them for argument.
A federal court judge in North Carolina last week granted permission to a group of Uber drivers challenging the company’s classification structure to band together and proceed with a class action lawsuit against the ride-hailing company. The drivers claim they are improperly labeled as independent contractors and should be entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and other wage and hour protections under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Applicant background reports can be vital tools for employers, especially in the hiring process. However, amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) significantly increase the rights of applicants and employees to receive certain disclosures and to choose whether to authorize certain background reports. Given the increase in litigation over these issues, employers (as well as their attorneys and investigators) are well-advised to pay close attention to the detailed requirements of the FCRA.
Class Action Waiver Update: Will a Switch in Time Persuade Nine?
It was no surprise when, on June 16, 2017, numerous business and employer groups (including several represented by Ogletree Deakins) filed over a dozen amicus briefs supporting the employers in the three class action waiver cases pending in the Supreme Court of the United States: National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.
In a fascinating turn of events, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) switched sides in a critical pending Supreme Court case last Friday. The three consolidated cases—National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300—have been closely watched as the Supreme Court is expected to resolve a growing circuit split over whether an employment contract that requires an employee to waive his or her right to bring or participate in a class action violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
A federal court in Florida issued a potentially groundbreaking decision earlier this week that could open the floodgates when it comes to a new trend in litigation filed under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): the “surf-by” lawsuit. While businesses have been forced to deal with so-called drive-by lawsuits for some time now – those claims filed by plaintiffs who spot technical ADA violations such as inaccessible entrances by simply driving down the street – recent years have seen an explosion when it comes to the digital equivalent of such suits.
On June 16, 2017, Ogletree Deakins filed an amicus brief in the class action waiver cases that are currently before the Supreme Court of the United States: National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris. The high court had agreed to take up the contentious class action waiver issue earlier this year to decide whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) can ban class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or whether such waivers are protected under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Ogletree Deakins prepared the amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the Council on Labor Law Equality, which collectively represent thousands of employers and businesses across the country.
Plaintiffs may not voluntarily dismiss their class action claims upon receiving an adverse class certification decision and subsequently invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the general rule that appeals can be taken only from a final judgment, to appeal the decision as a matter of right, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. Microsoft Corporation v. Baker, No. 15-457 (June 12, 2017).
Employers returning from the Memorial Day weekend were on the receiving end of bad news as they learned that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals became the third federal appeals court to strike down mandatory class action waivers.
In a somewhat unusual ruling, a New York federal court denied an unpaid intern’s attempt to remand a putative wage-hour class action against Oscar de la Renta to state court even though the case was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) approximately two years after the case was filed.
Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice was the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21, 2017, when the Court heard oral argument in Microsoft Corporation v. Baker, No. 15-457. If this controversial procedural mechanism is allowed, a named plaintiff would be able to simply agree voluntarily to dismiss his or her claims with prejudice, then appeal the unfavorable judgment against class certification.
Executive Summary: A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently overruled a lower court’s decision refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement, holding that the dispute resolution provision of the agreement was valid and enforceable and any invalid provisions could be severed. See Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Company, (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2017).
Employers facing multiple litigations can take solace in the fact that, sometimes, too much of a bad thing can be helpful. In Ruiz v. Brennan, 16-11061, the Fifth Circuit held that a pending administrative class action subsumed a plaintiff’s attempts to file an arguably duplicative individual claim in a separate action. As a result, the second litigation was dismissed without prejudice.
How Does the Supreme Court’s Remand of the Transgender Discrimination Case Impact Wage-and-Hour Class Actions?
Last night, the House approved the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act by a vote of 220-201. To review our post last month detailing exactly how this bill would affect class action litigation, click here.
The US Supreme Court has announced it will wait to hear a trio of mandatory arbitration cases in employment until its next term, which does not begin until October. The cases involve three Fair Labor Standards Act disputes involving whether employers can use mandatory arbitration clauses to ban employees from bringing class action lawsuits.
When the U.S. Supreme Court announced several weeks ago it would settle a dispute about whether employers can use mandatory class action waivers with their workers, most expected a final decision by June 2017. Employers were prepared to spend the next several months with their fingers crossed hoping the decision would fall in their favor, seeking clarity to a topic that has become increasingly muddled over the past year.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court notified the parties in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307; Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285; and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300 that the cases will be heard in October 2017. Jackson Lewis has represented Murphy Oil USA throughout these proceedings. As reported in Jackson Lewis’ earlier post, on January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court consolidated the three cases and granted certiorari.
The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has instructed Regional Offices to hold in abeyance cases involving mandatory arbitration agreements with opt in or opt out clauses. Regions must do the same in cases where an employer argues that the class action waiver in its arbitration agreement is different than the one at issue in Murphy Oil. Regions are to evaluate cases independently.
The Patriots, Falcons, and . . . class actions?
The Supreme Court, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), set a high standard for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”). Under Rule 23(a), the party seeking certification must demonstrate that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23. Additionally, the proposed class must satisfy at least one of the three requirements in Rule 23(b). Id. In determining whether these requirements are met, the Supreme Court has instructed district courts to conduct a “rigorous analysis,” which frequently “will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551.
The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether employers can use mandatory arbitration clauses to ban employees from bringing class action lawsuits over workplace disputes. The Court announced it will hear a trio of Fair Labor Standards Act cases involving the enforceability of class action waivers, which have become increasingly common in the employment context.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Supreme Court’s action promises the much-anticipated resolution of the circuit split on the issue.
On January 13, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three cases involving the lawfulness of class and collective action waivers in arbitration agreements. Since the National Labor Relations Board’s 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, courts have wrangled with the enforceability of class action waivers and the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Supreme Court’s decision to address this issue means the now-existing circuit split could end.
On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the contentious class action waiver issue that has riled courts for the past four years.
In a widely expected move, the U.S. Supreme Court just agreed to settle a dispute about whether employers can use mandatory class action waivers with their workers. The decision, which should be issued by June 2017, will provide clarity to a topic that has become increasingly muddled over the past year. Employers will spend the next several months with their fingers crossed hoping the decision falls in their favor.
Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300, consolidating them for argument. The three cases present the question whether class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Supreme Court’s action promises the much-anticipated resolution of the circuit split on the issue.
In April of 2015, Pennsylvania federal district court judge Anita B. Brody approved a settlement between the National Football League (NFL) and retired football players intended to resolve thousands of concussion lawsuits dating back to 2011. The settlement covers all living NFL football players who retired before July 7, 2014 (over 20,000 players) and could result in a payout of $1 billion.
Earlier this year, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Rules submitted proposed amendments to a number of Rules, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (which governs class actions), and requested that the proposals be circulated to the bench, bar, and public for comments. The proposed amendments, advisory committee reports, and related information can be found on the Judiciary’s website and a copy is available here.
Experts now predict that by 2020, 40% of workers will not fit into the traditional employment model as we currently know it.
Employers can breathe a sigh of relief after the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals once again upheld the validity of class and collective action waivers in arbitration agreements. Rather than siding with several recent circuit courts that struck down mandatory class and collective action waivers, the 2nd Circuit (covering New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) stuck to its guns and prior precedent to rule that employers can require employees to bring arbitration claims on an individual basis and prohibit them from joining together to bring class or collective actions (Patterson v. Raymour’s Furniture Co.).
Requiring class and collective action waivers as a condition of hire or continued employment violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 22, 2016.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has joined its sister court in the 7th Circuit in holding that arbitration agreements that prevent employees from filing class actions violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are therefore unenforceable.
Executive Summary. The Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal have each issued decisions that may fundamentally affect how employers deal with arbitration agreements in the future. In Morris v. Ernst & Young, the Ninth Circuit held that it is unlawful to require an employee to sign an arbitration agreement that includes a class action waiver. In Esparza v. Sand & Sea, Inc., the California Court of Appeal refused to enforce an arbitration provision that was contained only in an employee handbook.
In recent weeks, multiple class action lawsuits have been filed against private, nonprofit universities across the country alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and claiming millions of dollars in damages for retirement plan participants. Each action was filed by the same law firm that previously filed similar class actions against several large private companies and which now appears to be targeting higher educational institutions.
Requiring class and collective action waivers as a condition of hire or continued employment violates the National Labor Relations Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, has ruled. Morris v. Ernst & Young, No. 13-16599 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016).
Earlier this month, United States District Court Judge Peter Sheridan dismissed a class action brought against Work Out World (“WOW”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In doing so, Judge Sheridan relied on the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
A federal court recently upheld the validity of an employer’s class action waiver, forcing a disgruntled worker into arbitrating his case individually instead of using the court system to launch a large-scale class action. Typically, this kind of decision would not be particularly significant; after all, many businesses employ class waivers, and the overwhelming number of federal courts examining them have approved their use. But this case is noteworthy for two reasons: it was the first time a federal court published an opinion on class waivers since the 7th Circuit became the first court to reject them, and the decision boosts the burgeoning gig economy (Bekele v. Lyft, Inc.).
Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago held in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation that a mandatory agreement between the employer (Epic) and its employees requiring arbitration of wage and hour claims on an individual basis ran afoul of employees’ rights “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Other circuit courts, including the Fifth Circuit in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB have come out the other way and upheld mandatory arbitration agreements that require employees to arbitrate wage and hour claims and that waive an employee’s ability to bring class or collective claims.
Executive Summary: On May 26, 2016, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a class and/or collective action waiver contained in an arbitration agreement was unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and was, therefore, unenforceable. Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 15-2997.
or the first time, a federal appeals court has dealt a serious blow to class and collective action waivers in arbitration agreements. In Jacob Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a mandatory arbitration agreement prohibiting employees from bringing claims against their employer on a class or collective basis violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). While the decision itself only directly impacts employers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, the court’s reasoning could be adopted by other circuits, or perhaps by the U.S. Supreme Court, causing even more headaches for employers around the country.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, in Lewis v. Epic-Systems Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9638 (7th Cir. 2016), that a health care software company's arbitration agreement violates the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by barring them from participating in or pursuing wage-and-hour class action or collective claims. Because the ruling deepens a split among the circuits on this issue, it could lead to an eventual review by the Supreme Court to resolve the inconsistency.
Earlier this week, by a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court issued a “no decision” decision on an issue important to employers facing class action litigation. The Court decided that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals needed to review again a question of whether plaintiffs have standing to pursue class action claims on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, if they cannot show that they have suffered actual harm. By failing to decide the question one way or the other, the Court effectively delayed a determination of whether employers will have another tool to help curtail costly class action claims, or whether they will face a substantial increase in the number of such claims (Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins).
For employers who are facing class claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, you may have more support for your defense: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California recently granted Wilshire Consumer Capital’s (WCC) motion to deny class certification in a putative class action filed under the TCPA.
There’s been a lot of buzz in the past few weeks surrounding Lyft’s proposed class action settlement in Lyft v. Cotter, NDCA Case No. 13-cv-04064-VC. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Lyft will, among other things, (1) pay putative class members $12.25 million; (2) replace its current at-will termination provision with one that allows Lyft to deactivate drivers only for specific reasons or after providing a driver notice and an opportunity to cure; and (3) pay the arbitration fees and costs unique to arbitration for claims brought by drivers against Lyft related to their employment with Lyft.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, resolving a split among the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment to the representative plaintiff in a class or collective action operates to moot the class/collective claims.
The Supreme Court Rules an Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Cannot Moot a Case, But What About Payment of Complete Relief?
A divided U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez1 that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment is a legal nullity that cannot moot a case. However, the Court left open the possibility that payment of complete relief may suffice.
Employers paid out a record $2.5 billion last year to settle 50 of the largest employment lawsuits, according to the 12th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report from Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
The U.S. Supreme Court today eliminated a strategy defendants have used to stem the rising tide of class action lawsuits—offering the named plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit full relief, mooting their individual claim (regardless if they accept it), and along with it, rendering the class action moot. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez.
Today, the Supreme Court limited employers’ ability to proactively and inexpensively end class action litigation before it takes off. In a 6 to 3 decision, the Court held that a defendant making a complete offer of relief to a plaintiff does not serve to kill the case, and more importantly, the plaintiff can still move forward with class action litigation. Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.
On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided another case in a line of cases addressing the issue of class action mootness. Specifically, the justices ruled that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case. “Like other unaccepted contract offers,” the Court wrote, an unaccepted settlement offer “creates no lasting right or obligation. With the offer off the table, and the defendant’s continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists.” The Court also found that not all government contractors are entitled to “derivative sovereign immunity.” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, Supreme Court of the United States (January 20, 2016).
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez. Here is the decision. The Court decided (6-3) that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a case, resolving the circuit split, and answering the question left unanswered in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk (more on Genesis and the lead-up to Campbell-Ewald discussed here). The majority adopted Justice Kagan’s dissent in Genesis. The Court did not decide what would happen if the defendant deposits the full amount due (as opposed to just making the offer) and the court enters judgment in that amount, leaving that issue for another day. More analysis of the decision to follow.
Our quarterly Class Action Trends Report discusses significant new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims.
Whether a plaintiff who alleges no injury may bring a lawsuit, including a class action, based on a violation of statutory rights was the central issue before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 2, 2015, when the Court heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, et al., No. 13-1339.
Does An Offer of Complete Relief Moot a Plaintiff’s Individual and Corresponding Class Claims?
If an employee brings a class action lawsuit, the employer offers the representative employee more than he could possibly recover individually in the lawsuit and the employee rejects the offer, does the offer “moot” the individual’s claims and, more importantly, require dismissal of the class claims as well?
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, No. 14-857, a case that could significantly affect the viability of class action litigation, particularly wage and hour class actions, though the case pending before the Court arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Below is a link to the latest issue of the Jackson Lewis Class Action Trends Report.
Class Arbitration of ERISA Claims: Yes You Can!
ERISA neither expressly nor impliedly prohibits mandatory arbitration of claims. Numerous courts that have analyzed the purpose of both ERISA and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) have held that ERISA claims are arbitrable. And while the Supreme Court has not spoken directly to the issue, the Court’s pro-arbitration jurisprudence under the FAA – culminating with several decisions approving the inclusion of class action waivers in arbitration agreements – strongly suggests that it would approve of the inclusion of ERISA claims in an arbitration agreement. Moreover, courts applying the recent Supreme Court decisions involving mandatory arbitration agreements have affirmed the use of class waivers in a variety of federal statutory contexts, including ERISA. As a result, more and more employers are implementing broad arbitration clauses with class action waivers.
The United States Supreme Court unfortunately denied review in Bridgestone Retail Operations v. Milton Brown (Docket No. 14-790) – thereby declining a second opportunity to review the California Supreme Court’s determination that PAGA representative action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are not enforceable. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, which first presented the issue for review before the high Court. In Iskanian, the California Supreme Court of course held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable, but that PAGA representative action waivers are not. The Iskanian Court’s reasoning is difficult to square with U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility. As such, many employers were hoping the Court would grant review if not in Iskanian then at least in Bridgestone -- with the issue being presented for a second time in that case. No such luck. For now, California employers will continue to be stuck with the Iskanian precedent in California state court. Meanwhile, California federal courts have widely rejected Iskanian and thus, the enforceability of a PAGA representative action waiver in an arbitration agreement continues to depend on whether the issue is being decided by a California state court or a federal court. Perhaps one of the cases making its way through the California federal appellate track (the Ninth Circuit) will convince the Supreme Court to accept review to resolve the conflict between California state and federal courts on this important issue for California employers. In the meantime, California employers should stay the course, understanding that class action waiver provisions are fully enforceable in both state and federal courts in the Golden State. The piggy-back PAGA representative claims will continue to present challenges – at least in state court.
The slowly rising waves of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class-action litigation are beginning to crash against employers. And if you thought that the FCRA only applied to credit bureaus and creditors, it’s time to think again.
On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a critical issue regarding Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) removals. Specifically, the Supreme Court settled a controversy surrounding what information a removing defendant must provide regarding the CAFA amount in controversy in its notice of removal.
The use of Rule 68 offers of judgment to moot the claims of plaintiffs in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action context has received much attention recently as the courts consider defendants’ use of this strategy in the wake of the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 113 S. Ct. 1523 (2013). In one such case out of the Eastern District of New York, recently covered by our New York City office, a bid to pick off the named plaintiff in an FLSA case was unsuccessful.
Executive Summary: The Eleventh Circuit recently held that an arbitration agreement that waives an employee's ability to bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). See Walthour v. Chipio Windshield Repair, LLC (11th Cir. March 21, 2014). The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the right to file a collective action under the FLSA is a non-waivable substantive right and that the agreement was invalid because it purported to waive that right. The court found no contrary congressional command in the FLSA that would override the FAA's strong policy in favor of arbitration.
Employers should be aware of a recent decision that allows employers in the Eleventh Circuit to use collective action waivers in arbitration agreements with employees to minimize exposure to collective action lawsuits.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held collective or class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable – flatly rejecting the National Labor Relations Board’s decision in D.R. Horton v. NLRB.
Combining today's decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, (6.20.13) with its decision 10 days ago in Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, (S.Ct. 6.10.13) the Supreme Court's position now seems clear. If an employer wants to avoid class or collective actions, it can do so by having an arbitration agreement that precludes arbitration of claims on a class basis. But to be sure that happens, you need to be explicit about it.
The U.S. Supreme Court held today that courts cannot invalidate arbitration agreements which waive class actions, unless there is an express congressional statement that class-action proceedings are so necessary to a federal claim as to preempt the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.
This morning, with Justice Scalia writing for a 5-3 majority, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a waiver of class arbitration in a commercial contract is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), even if the plaintiffs’ cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery. The Court refused to invalidate the class-action waiver on the ground that pursuit of individual claims would be fiscally impractical. According to the Court, “The class-action waiver merely limits arbitration to the two contracting parties. It no more eliminates those parties' right to pursue their statutory remedy than did federal law before its adoption of the class action for legal relief in 1938.” American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12–133, U.S. Supreme Court (June 20, 2013).
On June 10, 2013 a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard of review federal courts will use when reviewing an arbitrator’s decision about whether parties contemplated class arbitration when they entered into a broadly worded mandatory-arbitration provision. Though the case involved an arbitration provision outside the employment context, this decision has implications for employers using mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts and other agreements with employees.
Major Changes at the EEOC Could Mean Major Liability for Employers; Challenges to Standing and Venue in Class Action Litigation; “Hybrid” Wage and Hour Class Actions Approved by Third Circuit; E-Discovery Developments from the Land of Zubulake.
Employers often expect that, before the EEOC can expand a single-employee EEOC charge into a class action lawsuit, the EEOC must explain the scope of any potential class action and offer an employer the opportunity to resolve it. That expectation is open to question, however, after the Northern District of Illinois’s recent decision in EEOC v. Union Road Towing, Inc. In that case, the Court rejected an employer’s attempt to eliminate an EEOC class action based upon the limited nature of the EEOC’s pre-suit disclosures. Because the Seventh Circuit has not yet resolved this specific issue, the district court’s ruling increases the risk to Illinois employers that the EEOC can turn adverse findings in single-employee charges of discrimination into claims on behalf of an entire class of employees, without first affording the employer an informed opportunity to attempt to resolve such class-wide claims. As explained below, to retain the possibility of pre-lawsuit resolution of such claims and avoid expansive discovery, employers should repeatedly seek clarification of the scope of any potential class action referenced in EEOC reasonable cause determinations or conciliation discussions.
In Campbell, et al. v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 2012 WL 746276 (9th Cir., March 8, 2012), a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision finding that an employer proved with â€œlegal certaintyâ€ that the putative class claims brought by the plaintiffs placed an amount in controversy that exceeded the requirement for federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
The Seventh Circuit recently applied the Supreme Courtâ€™s Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes decision to class certification in a wage and hour action, and affirmed the certification of two classes. Ross v. RBS Citizens N.A. d/b/a Charter One. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying two classes of bank employees and that this certification met the commonality requirement clarified in Dukes.
In 2008, 5,302 suits were filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the nationâ€™s federal courts. Statistics Div., Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics. By 2010, that number had jumped to 6,081. One source of the uptick appears to be the flood of â€œhybridâ€ actions, in which plaintiffs assert violations of state wage and hour laws, styled as purported Rule 23 class actions, and FLSA claims, which must be brought as a collective action.
On April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of class action waiver provisions in arbitration agreements. Under such provisions, parties both agree to arbitrate their disputes, and waive the right to participate in class action lawsuits or class arbitrations. The Court's ruling allows businesses to require customers to arbitrate their disputes individually, and reaffirms the federal policy favoring arbitration. This is good news for employers. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.
Today the Supreme Court gave a powerful tool for employers to avoid collective and class actions when it overturned the 9th Circuit's decision in ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (4.27.11) [pdf]. Justice Scalia writing for a sharply divided court, split on the now familiar lines, rejected attempts by states (in this case California) that would prohibit arbitration agreements which prohibit class treatment of claims.
Generally, employees have not been successful in trying to bring class actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The reason is that – unlike Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act – it's not enough for an employee to belong to a protected class. Under the nondiscrimination provisions of the ADA, an employee must be a "qualified individual with a disability." Determining whether the class members are all qualified generally forecloses treating them as a class.
The Next Wave - Systemic Discrimination Class Actions.
The apparent next wave of employment discrimination class actions appears to be cases focusing on so-called systemic discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have undertaken recent initiatives to this effect. And prominent plaintiffs’ attorneys have said these cases are the future of employment class actions.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.