Source: https://www.rossrunkelreport.com/blog?category=Class+Action
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:47:44+00:00

Document:
When Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (consolidated with Ernst & Young v. Morris and NLRB v. Murphy Oil) goes to oral argument at the US Supreme Court on October 2, we will have the rare treat of watching the US Solicitor General arguing in favor of the employers and the NLRB's General Counsel arguing in favor of the NLRB and the employees. The Court granted motions for divided argument today [Order], so these two government lawyers will each be sharing one-half hour of argument time with lawyers representing other parties. So, lots of lawyers.
Whether it's an unfair labor practice for an employer to require employees to agree not to bring a class-action or collective-action case - either in litigation or in arbitration.
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act compels enforcement of an employment arbitration agreement that prohibits employees from bringing class-action or collective-action cases.
Another odd twist is that by the end of this week the NLRB will be back in the hands of the Republicans (due to the Senate's confirmation of Republican William Emanuel today), and the new Board clearly will not support the D.R. Horton (NLRB 2012) holding that requiring employees to sign class-action waivers interferes with employees' right to engage in concerted activities. Of course, current NLRB General Counsel Richard Francis Griffin Jr. is a Democrat, and he can keep the fight going in the court system - but only until he is replaced in November by Republican Peter Robb.
For more background, see this from SCOTUSblog: Argument preview: Reconciling class waivers and the National Labor Relations Act (UPDATED).
Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis is the most important employment law case of the current session of the US Supreme Court, and the Court told the lawyers today that oral arguments will be put off until the next session which begins in October. This means a decision might not come out until early 2018.
The Court doesn't announce its reasons for when it schedules oral arguments, but I'll be bold enough to speculate. It's a combination of (1) this is an extremely important case that will have an impact on thousands of employers and millions of employees, (2) for a big case the Court likes to have a full boat of nine Justices, and Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch - the President's nominee - should be confirmed before October. There's also the possibility that the Court already sees itself split 4-4, which would create a big problem because there are three consolidated cases with conflicting results and a 4-4 decision would affirm all of them.
Class action waivers – NLRA v. FAA: Ever since D.R. Horton (NLRB 2012), the NLRB has said that it's an unfair labor practice for an employer to require employees to agree that they will not bring a class-action or collective-action case, either in litigation or in arbitration. The NLRB's jurisdiction includes non-union workplaces in the private sector, so there's an impact on most private sector employees.
The Supreme Court has consolidated three cases that raise these issues.
The others are NLRB v. Murphy Oil [5th Circuit opinion] [Supreme Court briefs] (refusing to enforce the NLRB's D.R. Horton rule) and Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis [7th Circuit opinion] [Supreme Court briefs] (class action waiver in arbitration agreement violates NLRA and is unenforceable under the FAA).
The Court is delaying oral arguments until October at the earliest, so a decision might not come out until early 2018.
What do two employers, one employee, and the NLRB have in common? They all want the US Supreme Court to decide on the legality of arbitration agreements that bar employees from pursuing work-related claims on a collective or class basis. Huge numbers of employers' and employees' rights are at stake, circuits courts are split, and more cases will be coming in from other circuits soon.
It all started with D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), with the NLRB holding that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to enforce agreements with individual employees that require them to use individual arbitration for all work-related disputes, because this interferes with the employees' right to engage in concerted activities. The 5th Circuit rejected this reasoning in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F3d 344 (5th Cir 2013), saying that (1) the NLRA does not contain a “congressional command overriding” the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”); and (2) “use of class action procedures . . . is not a substantive right” under Section 7 of the NLRA.
NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA [Cert petition] [5th Circuit opinion] [Supreme Court briefs] is SCOTUSblog's petition of the day for November 2. The Murphy Oil case is essentially the same as D.R. Horton, and the 5th Circuit again ruled against the NLRB.
Does requiring employees to use individual arbitration for all work-related disputes interfere with the employees' right to engage in concerted activities under NLRA Section 7?
Is the FAA’s rule that arbitration agreements be enforced “overridden by a contrary congressional command” in the NLRA? Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220 (1987).
Is an arbitration agreement precluding class proceedings invalid because it operates as a "prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies”? Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013).
Is the rule in the NLRB's D.R. Horton case a proper application of the “savings clause” of FAA Section 2, which allows arbitration agreements to be denied effect based on generally applicable “grounds * * * at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract”?
The deadlines for filing responses are November 10 (Murphy Oil), November 14 (Epic Systems and Ernst & Young), and November 28 (Patterson). So we don't expect the Court to act on any of these petitions until their conferences on December 2 or 9.
It's the NLRA vs. the FAA. Litigants on both sides are asking the Supreme Court to resolve a simple issue: Does the NLRA bar class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.