NEW Professional Member Special>>> Save $20 and receive a SHRM tote bag
More companies are recognizing the importance of giving employees the time and space they need to navigate personal loss.
Save $20 on a New Professional Membership and receive a FREE Tote bag when you join SHRM today!
Learn to overcome challenges and meet your 2017 goals through competency-based HR education. Available in-person and virtually.
Expand your influence and learn how to become an effective leader. Join us in Phoenix, AZ | OCTOBER 2 - 4, 2017
Action means HR may want to include such waivers in arbitration agreements
Arbitration agreements often shield employers from class-action lawsuits through class-action waivers. But some employees say the waivers are unlawful. Who is right: employers or employees—and how can HR avoid being caught in the middle?
If employers are right, they may urge HR to increasingly use agreements with such waivers. But if employees are right, HR will need to make certain that arbitration agreements have excised such waivers.
Even the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been uncertain about this—first arguing in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court under the Obama administration that the waivers are unlawful. Then, DOJ's Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall switched sides on June 16, asserting in a brief that such agreements are legal.
"The about-face is stunning and most welcome by the employer community and those who advocate for arbitration," said Michael Lotito, an attorney with Littler in San Francisco and co-chair of the firm's government affairs branch, the Workplace Policy Institute. If arbitration agreements with class-action waivers were struck down, significant changes would have to be made to employee handbooks and other workplace agreements, he said. Such agreements may become more popular if they are found acceptable by the high court, he noted.
"Although the FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act] authorizes employees to pursue collective actions in court, that authorization is not meaningfully different from similar provisions of other laws that this court has found insufficient to override the FAA's [Federal Arbitration Act's] mandate to enforce arbitration agreements as written," Wall stated in the brief. He added that, "nothing in the NLRA's [National Labor Relations Act's] legislative history indicates that Congress intended to bar enforcement of arbitration agreements like those at issue here."
Three Consolidated Cases
The Supreme Court announced earlier this year that it will review three consolidated cases to resolve a split in the appeals courts on class-action waivers:
[SHRM members-only HR Q&A: What are the California rules regarding mandatory arbitration agreements and how do they differ from federal law?]
"It's important to note that this is DOJ's brief and the NLRB is not on the brief," said James Plunkett, senior government relations counsel with Ogletree Deakins in Washington, D.C. "The NLRB will move forward representing itself and will likely maintain the argument it has made all along. The board still [has a] 2-to-1 Democratic majority with a Democratic general counsel, so it is unlikely to abandon its position."
Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more. Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
New Pro Member Special: $20 off + Free Tote
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies