Board and Courts Clash Over D.R. Horton

by FordHarrison
Contact

Executive Summary:  Two recent decisions illustrate the tension between the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and courts created by the Board's decision in D.R. Horton, which held that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it required employees to sign an agreement that precluded them from filing joint, class, or collective claims regarding wages, hours or other working conditions against the employer in any forum, arbitral or judicial.  In Johnson v. TruGreen Ltd. Partnership, a federal district court in Texas rejected the Board's analysis in Horton, noting that the Board misinterpreted Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., a leading U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the federal policy favoring arbitration.  See Johnson v. TruGreen Ltd. Partnership, Cause No. A-12-CV-166-LY (October 25, 2012).   Not surprisingly, on the very same day, an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) followed Horton and held that a class action waiver in an employment application violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.  See Convergys Corp., Case 14-CA-075249 (October 25, 2012). 

Federal Trial Court Refuses to follow Horton – Finds Board Misread Gilmer

In TruGreen, the court rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to a class action waiver contained in the employer's alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, finding Horton unpersuasive because the Board misread the Supreme Court's decision in Gilmer. 

Background

In TruGreen, the plaintiffs were employed as lawncare technicians and telemarketers.  TruGreen had an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program that required employees to arbitrate all employment-related disputes.  The ADR program also contained a class-action waiver provision, pursuant to which all participating employees agreed to waive any right to bring any dispute as a class, collective or representative action. 

The plaintiffs filed a collective action against TruGreen in federal court, claiming the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by compensating them on a fluctuating workweek basis.  In response, TruGreen filed motions requesting the court dismiss the action, compel individual arbitration and strike the class action claims.  The court granted TruGreen's motions.

Arbitration Agreement Enforceable

The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and that the plaintiffs' FLSA claims fell within the scope of the agreement.  The court noted that it is well-settled that FLSA claims are subject to arbitration and, as long as the plaintiffs are able to vindicate their statutory cause of action under the FLSA, the arbitration agreement is enforceable. 

Class Action Waiver Valid

The court also found valid the class-action waiver contained in the employer's ADR policy.  The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the class-action waiver was unenforceable based on the Board's decision in Horton, noting that, until Horton, courts had uniformly enforced arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), even those governing the employer-employee relationship.  Although it acknowledged that two federal trial courts have followed Horton, the court found the reasoning of those decisions unpersuasive in light of Fifth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent upholding the enforcement of arbitration agreements as written.  Additionally, although not cited in TruGreen, state courts have also refused to follow Horton.  See, e.g., Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc., 207 Cal. App. 4th 1115, modified and rehearing denied, 2012 Cal App LEXIS 876 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. August 14, 2012).  The California Supreme Court denied review in Nelsen on October 31, 2012.

The court in TruGreen further held that it is not required to defer to the NLRB's interpretation of law outside the NLRA "for good reason."  According to the court, the Board in Horton misread Gilmer and inquired whether the plaintiff could vindicate his statutory rights arising under the NLRA even though the statutory cause of action at issue was the FLSA.  Under Gilmer, the question is not how arbitration affects all statutory rights somehow related to the plaintiff's cause of action; it is whether the "statutory cause of action" forming the basis of a plaintiff's lawsuit may be vindicated in the arbitral forum.  The court wrote: "Had the Board looked to the correct statute, the FLSA, it would have been required to follow governing precedent and find the plaintiff's claims arbitrable."  Thus, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the collective-action waiver required them to forego the NLRA's substantive protections in violation of the principles set forth in Gilmer.

The court also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has written extensively on the incompatibility of class procedures with arbitration, citing the Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.  In light of this precedent strongly favoring the enforcement of arbitration agreements as written, the court found Horton's interpretation of the FAA "extremely suspect." 

Thus, absent any binding authority from the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court adopting the reasoning in Horton, the court followed current precedent and enforced the arbitration agreement as written, upholding the class-action waiver and requiring the plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their FLSA claims. 

The NLRB Follows Horton

In Convergys Corp., an ALJ followed Horton and found that the employer violated the NLRA by:  including a class action waiver in its employment application; filing a motion to strike the plaintiffs' class and collective allegations; and defending against these allegations on the basis of the waiver.  

In Convergys, the plaintiff, Grant, was a customer service representative who filed an FLSA collective action against the employer for unpaid wages.  When she was hired, Grant signed an employment application that included a waiver of the right to a jury trial, a waiver of any statute of limitations longer than six months, and a class action waiver.  In response to Grant's complaint, the employer filed a motion to strike the class and collective actions in the FLSA suit, relying on the waiver contained in the employment application. 

The NLRB regional director then issued a complaint against Convergys, claiming the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by requiring job applicants to waive their rights to file collective lawsuits, by enforcing these waivers, by filing the motion to strike the class and collective allegations of Grant's suit, and by defending against the class and collective allegations of Grant's suit on the basis of the waiver she signed.

The ALJ stated that he was bound to follow the NLRB's decision in Horton, which is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.  Because the facts in Convergys were not materially distinguishable from those in Horton, the ALJ found that Convergys violated the NLRA.  Although Horton involved a mandatory arbitration agreement rather than a lawsuit that waived employees' rights to bring class or collective actions, the ALJ found it dispositive of Convergys because the Board's order specifically required the company to cease and desist from "maintaining a mandatory arbitration agreement that waives the right to maintain class or collective actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial."

The ALJ rejected the employer's argument that Horton does not apply because Grant was a job applicant, not an employee, when she signed the job application.  According to the ALJ, "applicants for employment are employees within the meaning of section 2(3) of the NLRA."  Additionally, the ALJ noted that Grant was working for the employer when she exercised the right found by the Board in Horton to file a class action lawsuit.

The ALJ also held that Horton stands for the proposition that employers are free to assert arguments against class certification other than those based on the kind of waiver signed in this case.  "D.R. Horton does not prevent an individual employee from a non-coercive waiver of his or her right to participate in a class action lawsuit.  It does hold a waiver obtained by the employer as a condition of employment to be a violation of the NLRA."   

Employers' Bottom Line: 

Employers will continue to find the Board challenging mandatory arbitration agreements that contain class action waivers; however, most federal courts, such as the one in TruGreen, have refused to follow Horton, recognizing the deficiencies in the Board's analysis.  Horton is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit; thus, employers may soon have more guidance on the impact of the Board's decision.   However, the NLRB has consistently held that it is not bound by U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions; rather, it is bound only by U.S. Supreme Court decisions and previous NLRB decisions.  Therefore, while the Fifth Circuit may decide the case in D.R. Horton's favor, that may not necessarily end the litigation over this issue. 

If you have any questions regarding the issues discussed in this Alert or other labor or employment related issues, please contact the FordHarrison attorney with whom you usually work.

 

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.

© FordHarrison | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

FordHarrison
Contact
more
less

FordHarrison 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.
Custom Email Digest
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.