Supreme Court Rules Class Arbitrations Can Be Barred By Agreement
May 21, 2018
The issue before the Court has been brewing since the NLRB’s D.R.Horton ruling in 2012. In a break with precedent, the Board ruled that class action prohibitions in arbitration agreements violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act’s (“NLRA”) guarantee of collective action and, thus, was a valid exception to the strict requirement of the federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The FAA, a law otherwise broadly supporting arbitrations, includes a “saving clause,” which permits courts to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” §2. Appeals courts have split on whether D.R.Horton expressed the proper application of the FAA in class arbitration cases and the matter was ultimately brought to the Supreme Court.
The Court majority found little ambiguity in the applicable laws. Among the rationales upon which the majority based its ruling were its conclusions that the saving clause was intended to save defenses arising from state law and federal statutes and, as a law of general application, saving clause in the FAA “permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by ‘generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability,'” (citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). The Court noted “this means the saving clause does not save defenses that target arbitration either by name or by more subtle methods, such as by ‘interfer[ing] with fundamental attributes of arbitration.'” Id., at 344.
Thus, the lengthy judicial – and philosophical – battle among jurists and workplace participants has ended. The “saga” of D.R.Horton has ended and arbitration agreements prohibiting class actions are licit.
The Court also rejected the argument that the NLRA, passed subsequently to the FAA, implicitly “amended” the prior statute or otherwise altered its effect. Commenting that the NLRA focuses on the right to form unions and bargain collectively, the Court pointedly notes that the NLRA is silent with respect to arbitration and shows no intent to modify the FAA. The Court dryly states
Our rules aiming for harmony over conflict in statutory interpretation grow from an appreciation that it’s the job of Congress by legislation, not this Court by supposition, both to write the laws and to repeal them. Slip Op. at 10
and goes on to note that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected attempts to “conjure” conflicts between the FAA and other states.
No report of this decision can be complete without noting the acerbity of the language in both the majority decision and the lengthy dissent. The 5-4 decision once again split the High Court along ideological grounds and the “battle lines” were once again distinctly drawn: the role of legislative history, the importance of legislative intent, the extent of judicial “activism” or “restraint” on behalf of whom. Justice Gorsuch also took this opportunity to articulate his position on the limits of the Chevron decision in parsing asserted “statutory ambiguities.”
In sum, Epic Systems can be read as a simple and straight-forward decision permitting the use of arbitration agreements that prohibit class actions. To careful readers, this decision indicates that a number of battles have yet to be waged on issues of workplace practice and social policy. And the make-up of the Court may be a chief determinant of the outcomes.
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).
The False Claims Act and "Illegal DEI": What Federal Contractors Need to Know. Join Nita Beecher, Sarah Mugmon, and Adriana Joens to discuss the following questions.
On February 5, 2025, six Plaintiffs (the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (SEIU); The Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA); and Economic Policy Institute (EPI) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Labor (DOL), Labor’s Acting Secretary Vince Micone, the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS), and the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) from accessing DOL’s information systems and the sensitive data therein concerning both federal employees and private citizens. The complaint explains how DOGE, sanctioned only by Executive Order 14158 (Establishing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency), functions as a network of DOGE-related offices, teams, and roles overseen by Elon Musk within the Executive Office of the President and implanted within each federal agency. The complaint describes DOGE’s pattern as overtaking federal agencies without statutory authority, seizing their information systems, threatening career civil servants’ resistance with adverse employment action, and unilaterally dismantling or restructuring the agencies. As DOL is DOGE’s next posited target, plaintiffs seek to prevent DOGE from unlawfully accessing DOL’s sensitive information systems, including such systems maintained and managed by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Claims Administration, the Wage and Hour Division, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These systems include medical information, financial information, and personnel information, as well as the identities of anonymous whistleblowers. Plaintiffs allege that DOGE’s actions are unconstitutional because DOGE lacks lawful authority to either direct agency actions or access statutorily restricted government systems. Rather, DOGE’s function is limited to advising and assisting the President. Plaintiff’s claims mostly arise under the Administrative Procedure Act, which protects individuals harmed by “arbitrary and capricious” final agency actions and provides court intervention when such harm occurs. Specifically, Plaintiffs accuse DOL of unlawfully threatening federal employees with termination, violating information privacy statutes by instructing and disclosing confidential and private records, creating new rules without meeting “notice and comment” requirements, and abusing its discretion. As relief, Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare DOGE’s access to DOL’s systems as unlawful. Plaintiffs also request a Court order forbidding DOL from granting DOGE access to DOL’s systems, taking adverse personnel action against employees who refuse providing DOGE with unlawful access, and providing non-public DOL information to any person with a conflict of interest. This is the first complaint filed challenging DOGE’s access to sensitive government information systems.
On February 3, 2025, four plaintiffs (the National Association of Diverse Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland) jointly filed a complaint challenging EO 14151 (“Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) and EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”). The complaint does not challenge the revocation of 11246 yet addresses the legality of §§3-4 of EO 14173. The complaint alleges that EO 14173 is unconstitutional on various grounds and seeks a court order overturning the EO. With respect to EO 14173, the complaint alleges that §3 violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. By threatening FCA enforcement against federal contractors and grantees who certify that they do not operate undefined “programs promoting DEI,” plaintiffs allege that §3 chills the expression of or participation in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives. Plaintiffs also alleges that §3 violates separation of powers because it empowers the executive branch, rather than Congress, to control federal funding based on whether contractors or grantees operate “programs promoting DEI.” As for §4 of EO 14173, the complaint alleges that it likewise violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by threatening civil investigation and “deterrence” against anyone who expresses support for undefined “illegal DEI.” Furthermore, because §4 is vague with respect to terms (e.g., “illegal DEIA and DEIA policies”) and the criteria for selecting which organizations are subject to investigation or enforcement actions, plaintiffs also allege §4 violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We anticipate additional plaintiffs filing similar lawsuits related to EO 14173 are forthcoming.
Join David Fortney, Elizabeth Bradley, and Nita Beecher as they discuss the practical implications of how employers respond to the new prohibitions on “illegal DEI,” including:
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).
The False Claims Act and "Illegal DEI": What Federal Contractors Need to Know. Join Nita Beecher, Sarah Mugmon, and Adriana Joens to discuss the following questions.
On February 5, 2025, six Plaintiffs (the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (SEIU); The Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA); and Economic Policy Institute (EPI) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Labor (DOL), Labor’s Acting Secretary Vince Micone, the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS), and the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) from accessing DOL’s information systems and the sensitive data therein concerning both federal employees and private citizens. The complaint explains how DOGE, sanctioned only by Executive Order 14158 (Establishing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency), functions as a network of DOGE-related offices, teams, and roles overseen by Elon Musk within the Executive Office of the President and implanted within each federal agency. The complaint describes DOGE’s pattern as overtaking federal agencies without statutory authority, seizing their information systems, threatening career civil servants’ resistance with adverse employment action, and unilaterally dismantling or restructuring the agencies. As DOL is DOGE’s next posited target, plaintiffs seek to prevent DOGE from unlawfully accessing DOL’s sensitive information systems, including such systems maintained and managed by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Claims Administration, the Wage and Hour Division, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These systems include medical information, financial information, and personnel information, as well as the identities of anonymous whistleblowers. Plaintiffs allege that DOGE’s actions are unconstitutional because DOGE lacks lawful authority to either direct agency actions or access statutorily restricted government systems. Rather, DOGE’s function is limited to advising and assisting the President. Plaintiff’s claims mostly arise under the Administrative Procedure Act, which protects individuals harmed by “arbitrary and capricious” final agency actions and provides court intervention when such harm occurs. Specifically, Plaintiffs accuse DOL of unlawfully threatening federal employees with termination, violating information privacy statutes by instructing and disclosing confidential and private records, creating new rules without meeting “notice and comment” requirements, and abusing its discretion. As relief, Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare DOGE’s access to DOL’s systems as unlawful. Plaintiffs also request a Court order forbidding DOL from granting DOGE access to DOL’s systems, taking adverse personnel action against employees who refuse providing DOGE with unlawful access, and providing non-public DOL information to any person with a conflict of interest. This is the first complaint filed challenging DOGE’s access to sensitive government information systems.
On February 3, 2025, four plaintiffs (the National Association of Diverse Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland) jointly filed a complaint challenging EO 14151 (“Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) and EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”). The complaint does not challenge the revocation of 11246 yet addresses the legality of §§3-4 of EO 14173. The complaint alleges that EO 14173 is unconstitutional on various grounds and seeks a court order overturning the EO. With respect to EO 14173, the complaint alleges that §3 violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. By threatening FCA enforcement against federal contractors and grantees who certify that they do not operate undefined “programs promoting DEI,” plaintiffs allege that §3 chills the expression of or participation in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives. Plaintiffs also alleges that §3 violates separation of powers because it empowers the executive branch, rather than Congress, to control federal funding based on whether contractors or grantees operate “programs promoting DEI.” As for §4 of EO 14173, the complaint alleges that it likewise violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by threatening civil investigation and “deterrence” against anyone who expresses support for undefined “illegal DEI.” Furthermore, because §4 is vague with respect to terms (e.g., “illegal DEIA and DEIA policies”) and the criteria for selecting which organizations are subject to investigation or enforcement actions, plaintiffs also allege §4 violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We anticipate additional plaintiffs filing similar lawsuits related to EO 14173 are forthcoming.
Join David Fortney, Elizabeth Bradley, and Nita Beecher as they discuss the practical implications of how employers respond to the new prohibitions on “illegal DEI,” including:
Yesterday, Fortney & Scott launched the first in a series of webinars to provide employers with valuable information about President Trump’s actions that significantly impact the workplace.
FortneyScott presents one of a series of webinars regarding Trump's Executives Orders, specifically, the revocation of EO 11246.
In an anticipated move, the Department of Labor halted enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action programs (AAPs) for federal contractors, following an Order from the Acting Secretary of Labor, Vincent Micone.
Former President Donald Trump has revoked a nearly 60-year-old executive order, originally signed by President Lyndon Johnson, that prohibited government contractors.
