D.R. Horton Déjà Vu: Will NLRB be Forced to Respect Class Action Waivers for Employers Doing Business in 5th Circuit?

by Moore & Van Allen PLLC

As it stands, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has taken the position that class action waivers in individual employee/employer arbitration agreements are illegal and the agency continues to invalidate these agreements even though the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that they are enforceable.  In D.R. Horton (2012), the NLRB invalidated class action waivers in individual employment agreements on the grounds that such waivers interfere with an employee’s rights to collective action provided by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and struck down the agency’s decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013).  While this was a significant victory for employers, the NLRB asserts that it is not bound by Circuit Court of Appeals opinions and it will continue to strike down class waivers unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court rules against it on the issue.  The agency has reiterated its firm position several times, and explicitly reaffirmed its D.R. Horton ruling in Murphy Oil (2014).  As a result, companies like Murphy Oil that do business in the Fifth Circuit (TX, MS, LA) find themselves caught in a legal conundrum, having the NLRB strike down their arbitration agreements based on its D.R. Horton ruling despite having judicial approval for class action waivers.  As with Murphy Oil, these companies must seek judicial review to overturn the agency’s adverse decision even though D.R. Horton already was resolved by the court in their favor.  The tides could turn for companies doing business in the Circuit, however, if Murphy Oil prevails in its current appeal before the Fifth Circuit.  Murphy Oil has requested that the Fifth Circuit either hold the NLRB in contempt for refusing to honor the court’s D.R. Horton ruling, or issue a Writ ordering the NLRB to comply.  The August 31, 2015 oral arguments reveal that there may be questions regarding the scope of the Fifth Circuit’s authority to put an end to this nonsensical cycle, but members of the panel certainly expressed their distaste for the agency’s practices and noted the tension between executive and judicial branch authority raised by this case.


“Look, don’t argue D.R. Horton to us” 

One point resonated throughout the Murphy Oil oral arguments – this issue already was decided by the Fifth Circuit in D.R. Horton.  There is nothing to distinguish Murphy Oil from D.R. Horton, yet the parties stood before the Fifth Circuit presenting the exact same issue…déjà vu.  Murphy Oil asserted that in this case “the decision was written before the appeal was even filed,” given the principle of stare decisis and the NLRB’s acknowledgement that Murphy Oil’s case is indistinguishable from D.R. Horton.  Judge Jones went so far as to admonish the NLRB for even attempting to argue the substantive points underlying its position, stating:

Look, don’t argue D.R. Horton to us, because you’ve argued it in your brief and we’re bound by it, and I don’t think you can expect us to be writing against the binding precedent of this court. Now my colleagues might want to hear all of these arguments…they will fall on my deaf ears as a matter of stare decisis.

In response, the NLRB noted that this is the reason the agency requested an en banc panel to hear this matter, but that request had been denied.  The NLRB believes that the Fifth Circuit’s D.R. Horton decision “relies on a principle of FAA jurisprudence that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed.”  Nonetheless, the outcome of Murphy Oil likely will come as no surprise.  But, what of future cases presented to the Fifth Circuit by Murphy Oil or other companies if the NLRB persists?  Murphy Oil noted the recent appeal filed by Neiman Marcus against the NLRB.  Can the court put an end to the “circus of uncertainty,” as it has been coined by Murphy Oil?

Preventing the “Circus of Uncertainty” – An Attack on Executive Authority?

In addition to requesting that the NLRB’s decision be overturned, Murphy Oil petitioned the Fifth Circuit to restrain the NLRB from continuing its practice of striking down arbitration agreements with class waivers in contravention of the Fifth Circuit’s D.R. Horton decision.  Citing the Contempt Statute, 18 U.S.C. §401 and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 as authority, Murphy Oil urged the court to grant the extraordinary remedy given the NLRB’s “abundantly explicit” defiance of the court’s D.R. Hortondecision.  But, would this be “a broadside attack” on executive authority? Judge Jones inquired of Murphy Oil.

During arguments the panel probed whether Murphy Oil seeks an order that pertains only to the NLRB’s treatment of Murphy Oil or whether it seeks a broader order that would impact other companies as well.  While Murphy Oil’s counsel stated that his interest is in protecting the interest of his client, the court noted that Murphy Oil’s petition does seek a broader scope of relief.  Should and could such an order extend to all employers who operate within the three states in the Fifth Circuit, they discussed.  This question is complicated by the venue provisions of the NLRA, which allow companies to appeal to the Circuit Courts in the jurisdictions in which they do business, as well as the D.C. Circuit.  A company operating in multiple circuits can choose where to appeal, making it difficult to predict whether an appeal ultimately would end up before the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit currently is the only one to address the issue presented by D.R. Horton, although the parties noted a pending case in the Eighth Circuit.  While it can be assumed that companies that are able to appeal in the Fifth Circuit will choose to do so for the favorable law, there is no guarantee.  In fact, one member of the Murphy Oil panel inquired as to why Murphy Oil did not choose to file in a different circuit to facilitate the possibility of creating a circuit split and hasten U.S. Supreme Court review of the issue.

“It just seems to me an abuse of companies” – A Matter of Perspective

The NLRB stood its ground in the midst of the court’s criticisms of its practices, which include striking down these arbitration agreements despite D.R. Horton and seeking attorneys’ fees from these companies because in the NLRB’s view the attempt to enforce these arbitration agreements seeks an illegal end.  Judge Jones verbalized her disdain for the NLRB’s tactics:

So, basically you’re saying that any company that has this kind of agreement is vulnerable to having to defend something before an ALJ…before the Board, spend thousands of dollars doing that and then if they transact business in the Fifth Circuit come and file a petition for review costing thousands of dollars more?…It just seems to me an abuse of companies when you’ve received an adverse decision in a Circuit Court to pummel them…and make them litigate back to the Circuit that’s already decided in their favor….So basically everybody’s gonna to have to pay the penalty until you either vindicate or have your policy repudiated, is that right?

The NLRB’s counsel “disagree[d] with the characterization that they would have to pay the penalty,” and stated that “if they want to continue…to impose arbitration agreements that deprive their employees of their core Section 7 substantive right to engage in concerted activity, then the Board will maintain its well established principle that these agreements cannot be enforced.”  So, it seems we may be at an impasse.  We will be watching for the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and whether it will offer a reprieve for Murphy Oil and other companies doing business in the Circuit.

Written by:

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

Moore & Van Allen PLLC 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):

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.


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.