*By Patrick J. Hoban
On January 6, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its much-anticipated decision in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (2012). In D.R. Horton, the NLRB again flexed its regulatory muscle and extended the protections of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) to all forms of class litigation. The case addressed the issue of whether a nonunionized employer could require employees, as a condition of employment, to accept a mandatory arbitration agreement that required arbitration of employment disputes and precluded “class” arbitrations (i.e., resolution of claims brought by a group of employees in a single arbitration). A plurality of the Board, consisting of Board Chairman Mark Pearce and recently departed Member Craig Becker, ruled that home builder D.R. Horton’s mutual arbitration agreement (“MAA”) violated the National Labor Relations Act because it required employees —as a condition of employment — to forego class and collective action arbitration proceedings.
Background Facts
In January 2006, D.R. Horton began requiring employees to execute the MAA as a condition of employment. The MAA required that "all disputes and claims relating to the employee's employment" be determined by arbitration. The MAA further stated that the arbitrator "may hear only [an] employee's individual claims," and "does not have authority to fashion a proceeding as a class or collective action or to award relief to a group or class of employees in one arbitration proceeding." In other words, the MAA required an employee to resolve all employment-related disputes in individual arbitration, without the possibility of class or collective arbitration.
A D.R. Horton superintendent sought to arbitrate a claim on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated superintendents under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The employee claimed that he and other employees were misclassified and thus entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. D.R. Horton refused to submit to class arbitration, citing the MAA. The employee filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, claiming that the MAA violated Section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully interfering with employee rights under the NLRA.
Board’s Decision
The NLRB held that "an individual who files a class or collective action regarding wages, hours, or working conditions, whether in court or before an arbitrator, seeks to initiate or induce group action and is engaged in conduct protected by [the NLRA]." Thus, by requiring employees as a condition of employment to forego their rights to such concerted activity, D.R. Horton violated the NLRA.
The Board then addressed whether its decision was consistent with the language and goals of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Board determined that its decision did not conflict with the goals of the FAA because the right to bring a class or collective action was a substantive right guaranteed by the NLRA as a form of concerted protected activity. In reaching this conclusion, the Board distinguished the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), which held that arbitration agreements that are silent on class arbitration cannot be construed to require a party to submit to arbitration involving class claims. The NLRB also distinguished AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) wherein the Supreme Court held that state laws prohibiting class arbitration conflict with the FAA. Under these Supreme Court decisions, it is permissible for arbitration agreements to ban class or collective actions because arbitration is designed to provide an informal, simple mechanism for the resolution of bilateral disputes according to terms agreed upon by the parties.
The NLRB made clear that its decision addressed arbitration agreements that required a waiver of the right to engage in class litigation as a mandatory condition of employment. Many arbitration agreements, however, contain clauses allowing employees to "opt out" of the program. Under such agreements, employees may choose to refrain from participation in the arbitration process, preserving employee rights to participate in class action litigation and avoid individual arbitration entirely.
The decision leaves open the possibility that arbitration agreements that allow employees to “opt out” may not violate the NLRA, even if those agreements ban class or collective actions in any forum. However, in D.R. Horton, the NLRB established broad protections for employee participation in class or collective actions under the NLRA. As a result, the NLRB may find a violation of the NLRA if employers rely on Stolt-Nielsen to argue that arbitration agreements prohibit class or collective arbitration.
In light of the NLRB’s significant expansion of the protections under the NLRA, it is likely that D.R. Horton will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, a U.S. District Court discounted the NLRB’s D.R. Horton decision without comment less than ten days after it was issued. Lavoice v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., 11 Civ. 2308 (SD N.Y., January 13, 2012). However, employers that use or are considering using mandatory arbitration programs that restrict class and collective actions must carefully consider the impact of D.R. Horton.
*Patrick J. Hoban, an OSBA Certified Specialist in Labor and Employment Law, appears before the National Labor Relations Board and practices in all areas of labor relations. For more information about this decision or the NLRB, please contact Pat (pjh@zrlaw.com) at 216.696.4441.
