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 worke

California's Dynamex Case: The ABC Test Simplifies The Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court published a ground-breaking decision in the case of Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, Cal. Supreme Ct. no. S222732 , 2018 WL 1999120. The 85-page opinion is about when a worker may be classified as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, under California's Wage Order. Wage Order 9 was at issue in this case. Dynamex is a nationwide courier whose drivers were once classified as employees by the company, but were later reclassified as independent contractors in 2004. Such reclassification is often executed by companies in order to generate economic savings at the expense of its employees. For example, in Dynamex , the drivers were required to provide their own vehicles and pay all transportation expenses, maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc. The gist of the decision is this: If the employer cannot satisfy the ABC test, then the worker is an employee under the "suffer or permit to work" definit

Reimbursing Employees for Slip-Resistant Shoes

In a recent case, Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that the employer did not have to reimburse its employees for requiring them to buy and wear slip-resistant shoes. To avoid slip-and-fall accidents, BJ’s adopted a safety policy that required employees to wear black, slip-resistant, closed-toed shoes. The policy did not require employees to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoe. The policy also did not prohibit employees from wearing their shoes outside of work. Because the employees were not reimbursed for the cost of purchasing these shoes, a class action lawsuit was filed in 2014, seeking reimbursement for such costs under California Labor Code section 2802. California Labor Code section 2802(a) provides that “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to

Barrister Boyajian's Blog

Search This Blog