US Supreme Court: Employers Can Require Workers to Accept Individual Arbitration Agreements

Should employers be allowed to insist that disputes be handled in one-on-one arbitration, or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions? This issue was raised in the case titled Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (together with other cases which raised the same issue: Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al.).

The workers' argument was that such arbitration agreements violate employees' rights to act in concert and violates the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act). The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 today that companies may require workers to accept individual arbitration for wage and other workplace disputes rather than banding together in collective actions. US Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch wrote that as a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable, but as a matter of law, the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms providing for individualized proceedings.

Justice Ginsburg objected to the majority's opinion, stating that requiring employees to arbitrate wage and hour claims only one-on-one, as opposed to in a class action, will result in the violation of many rights because such claims are often too low in value to justify one-on-one litigation. Such claims will also frequently result in retaliation.

There are still many ways to challenge the enforceability of an arbitration agreement. This case only addressed a limited argument/challenge to arbitration agreements.

- Eric A. Boyajian, Esq., Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, APC. www.loeab.com

Comments

$4.5 Million in Wage Theft by Cheesecake Factory

The Labor Commissioner's Office recently found Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. liable in a $4.57 million wage theft case that underpaid 559 janitorial workers managed by Magic Touch Commercial Cleaning. Americlean Janitorial Services Corp., the Cheesecake Factory's janitorial contractor that subcontracted the work to Magic Touch is also liable. The wage theft occurred at eight locations in Ornage and San Diego counties. “This case illustrates common wage theft practices in the janitorial industry, where businesses have contracted and subcontracted to avoid responsibility for ensuring workers are paid what they are owed,” said Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su. “Client businesses can no longer shield themselves from liability for wage theft through multiple layers of contracts. Our enforcement benefits not only the workers who deserve to be paid, but also legitimate janitorial businesses that are underbid by wage thieves.” Investigators found that the janitorial work...

Joint Employers: The Employer and the Temp Agency

In Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc ., plaintiff Elvia Jimenez was hired through a temp agency to work for a manufacturing company, U.S. Continental Marketing Inc. (USCM). Jimenez was ultimately fired by USCM, and she filed a wrongful termination case against USCM. At trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant soley because the jury believed that USCM was not Jimenez' employer. This decision was based on the defense argument that the temp agency had relatively more control over Jimenez than did USCM. The California Court of Appeal recently reversed the decision and the stage is set for a new trial. The Court of Appeal ruled that USCM was Jimenez' employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Jimenez was, in almost all respects, treated like an employee of the USCM, except that the USCM did not hire her, pay her, provide her benefits, or track her time. The temp agency did those things. But the Court of Appeal held that under F...

Sexual Harassment and the case of 100 hugs

Can 100 hugs from your supervisor over the course of 12 years amount to sexual harassment? AN OVERVIEW OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT Sexual harassment can be verbal, physical or visual. There are two types. (1) Quid pro quo, AKA, tit for tat, where decisions are conditioned on sexual favors. (2) Hostile Environment, where an offensive work environment is created by conduct such as staring at someone, making sexual comments and jokes, or physically touching or blocking a person in an intimidating manner. A hostile work environment must be sufficiently extreme to change the terms and conditions of employment. All verbal or physical harassment in the workplace is not actionable. It must be severe or pervasive. To be deemed pervasive, the incidents of misconduct must be sufficiently continuous and concerted. A single incident may in some instances support a hostile environment claim depending upon its severity. The required showing of sev...

Barrister Boyajian's Blog

Search This Blog