Daily Labor Report® is the objective resource the nation’s foremost labor and employment professionals read and rely on, providing reliable, analytical coverage of top labor and employment...
Aug. 22 — Ernst & Young LLP’s requirement that employee disputes be resolved in arbitration on an individual basis rather than through solo or class litigation violates federal labor law, a federal appeals court ruled ( Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP , 9th Cir., No. 13-16599, 8/22/16 ).
The requirement violated accountants’ right to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Aug. 22, adopting a position advanced by the National Labor Relations Board.
The ruling sharpens a split among the federal appeals courts that have considered the question, a management-side attorney and an employment law professor said. It means the circuits are divided 2-2, Bill Emanuel, a shareholder in Littler Mendelson P.C.'s Culver City, Calif., office, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 22.
The Ninth Circuit joined the Seventh in adopting the NLRB’s position, putting those circuits at odds with the Fifth and Eighth circuits, said Professor Charlotte Garden of the Seattle University School of Law. In addition, “the Second and Eleventh, at minimum, have rejected the NLRB rule in drive-by fashion,” she told Bloomberg BNA.
The losing side in the Seventh Circuit case, Epic Systems Corp., filed a notice that it plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. “I think the court will take it next term,” Max Folkenflik, an attorney for the EY accountants, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 22. “We might have a decision by June,” he said.
Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel’s lawsuit alleged Ernst & Young deprived them of overtime and minimum wage by misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees, Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote for the Ninth Circuit. They appealed a lower court’s order that kicked their claims out of court by enforcing the arbitration agreement.
The “concerted activity waivers” the company required as a condition of employment violated “a well-established principle: employees have the right to pursue work-related legal claims together,” Thomas wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz.
In a dissent, Judge Sandra S. Ikuta said the majority opinion departs from Supreme Court precedent that shows the NLRA’s right to concerted activity must be “harmonized” with the national policy favoring arbitration embodied in the Federal Arbitration Act. A collective action under the FLSA is a “legal procedural mechanism for resolving disputes.”
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was guided by Supreme Court precedent that holds an agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled to deference, Thomas said. This is known as Chevron deference because it flows from a case in which Chevron U.S.A. was a litigant.
Chevron deference is a two-step process in which the court first asks whether the law at issue is ambiguous. “The Morris opinion very clearly says Section 7 of the NLRA bars these contracts,” Folkenflik said.
“The intent of Congress is clear,” Thomas said. The NLRA “protects a range of concerted employee activity,” he said. Filing a class or collective action is a concerted activity, he said.
An EY spokeswoman declined to comment Aug. 22.
Folkenflik is with Folkenflik & McGerity in New York. Tim Hoffman of Tim Hoffman Law and Ross L. Libenson of Libenson Law, both in Oakland, Calif., also represented the accountants. Rex Heinke of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Los Angeles argued the case for EY, which was also represented by Akin Gump attorneys Gregory Knopp in Los Angeles and Daniel Nash in Washington, D.C.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jon Steingart in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan J. McGolrick at email@example.com
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Stephen_Morris_et_al_v_Ernst__Young_et_al_Docket_No_1316599_9th_C.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)