That's A Spicy Meatball!

by BakerHostetler
Contact

What Does The Supreme Court’s Decision In Italian Colors Mean For The NLRB’s D.R. Horton Decision?

As our readers will no doubt recall, the Supreme Court boldly struck a blow for truth, justice and the American Way a few years ago in its approval of class action waivers in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). In that case, the Court struck down California’s Discover Bank rule, which prohibited class action waivers in the consumer context, on the basis of Federal Arbitration Act preemption.

A few months later, the National Labor Relations Board decided that it knows better than that silly old Supreme Court, at least in the employment context. (Apparently, the NLRB didn’t get the memo saying that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, but whatever.) The Board held that employee class waivers violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157, which protects concerted employee activities. D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (2012). In the NLRB’s view, this includes the right of employees (and the plaintiffs’ bar) to collectively bully employers with meritless lawsuits. (DISCLAIMER: That summary of the Board’s D.R. Horton holding may not be completely objective, and should not be relied upon as legal advice.)

The NLRB was gracious enough to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s Concepcion decision, bless their little hearts. But, it rejected the notion of FAA preemption on the basis that the NLRA is a federal statute. In particular, the Board held, “Preemption, schmreemption—the FAA isn’t the boss of us!” (or words to that effect). Obviously, this holding was a bit of a buzz-kill for all those employers who had just paid their lawyers to come up with super-duper, bulletproof class waivers. (No refunds, sorry.)

But then, a ray of hope! Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued another decision in its ongoing, “we’ve never met an arbitration agreement that wasn’t just adorable” series. American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurants, Case No. 12-133 (June 20, 2013). The plaintiffs in Italian Colors were merchants suing American Express for alleged antitrust violations. Each merchant had signed an arbitration agreement that waived the ability to proceed on a class basis in any dispute with American Express. But, it was largely undisputed that the claimed antitrust violations would require each potential class member to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in expert costs, with a maximum individual recovery of less than $40,000.

Oddly enough, the merchants weren’t too happy with this arrangement, and insisted that it would unfairly insulate American Express from antitrust liability. The Supreme Court majority, however, didn’t see any reason for all the hubbub. Its decision can be summed up as, “Tough --deal with it.”

So, what does this mean for the NLRB’s D.R. Horton ruling? Well, we believe it’s encouraging. Of course, there are a few, minor grounds on which Italian Colors might be distinguishable, but we make our bones representing employers, so we’re going to ignore those here. In truth, the rationale of the Italian Colors majority undeniably suggests that the Court would not look favorably on the NLRB’s D.R. Horton rationale. Three portions of the majority’s analysis particularly stand out in this respect.

First, the Italian Colors majority emphasized that the class procedures adopted in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not exist at the time the Sherman Act was passed. In particular, the Court noted that “the individual suit that was considered adequate to assure ‘effective vindication’ of a federal right before adoption of class-action procedures did not suddenly become ‘ineffective vindication’ upon their adoption.” (Slip Op. at 7). Similarly, the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, while the Federal Rules were adopted three years later, in 1938. The current version of Rule 23 is largely based on a significant expansion of the class action vehicle through amendments in the mid-1960s. Thus, at the time the NLRA was adopted, employees could not act collectively in the litigation process in the manner that is now permitted under Rule 23. Applying the majority’s analysis in Italian Colors, Section 7 therefore should not be read as intended to protect the right to petition for class status.

Second, in deciding D.R. Horton, the NLRB distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991). The Supreme Court held in Gilmer that the plaintiff was required to arbitrate his claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Letting out a collective yawn, the NLRB brushed off the Gilmer decision on the basis that there was no definitive class waiver in that case and the issue was not litigated. The Italian Colors majority appeared to read Gilmer more broadly: “In Gilmer, supra, we had no qualms in enforcing a class waiver in an arbitration agreement even though the federal statute at issue, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, expressly permitted collective actions.” (Slip Op. at 8).

Third, the NLRB held in DR Horton that, even if there is no substantive right to class certification itself, the ability to petition for Rule 23 class certification is a substantive right. The Italian Foods majority held to the contrary. In fact, it phrased its rejection of this assertion in almost prescient terms: “One might respond, perhaps, that federal law secures a nonwaivable opportunity to vindicate federal policies by satisfying the procedural strictures of Rule 23 or invoking some other informal class mechanism in arbitration. But we have already rejected that proposition in AT&T Mobility.” (Slip Op. at 6, emphasis added).  In other words, “Nice try.”

Of course, this may all be moot. On Monday, June 24th, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari in the Noel Canning case. The D.C. Circuit held in Noel Canning that President Obama improperly exercised his recess appointment powers in regard to three of the current Board members. Noel Canning v. N.L.R.B., 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013). If the Supreme Court upholds the D.C. Circuit’s decision, D.R. Horton will be wiped away along with hundreds of other decisions the Board has issued since January 2012. Early reports indicate that few tears will be shed by employers in that event.

Bottom Line: Italian Colors is an encouraging sign of the well-deserved demise of D.R. Horton, if Noel Canning doesn’t call the cops on the NLRB’s party first.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

BakerHostetler
Contact
more
less

BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!