FordHarrison LLP • March 21, 2017
Executive Summary: A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently overruled a lower court’s decision refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement, holding that the dispute resolution provision of the agreement was valid and enforceable and any invalid provisions could be severed. See Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Company, (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2017).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 20, 2017
Employers facing multiple litigations can take solace in the fact that, sometimes, too much of a bad thing can be helpful. In Ruiz v. Brennan, 16-11061, the Fifth Circuit held that a pending administrative class action subsumed a plaintiff’s attempts to file an arguably duplicative individual claim in a separate action. As a result, the second litigation was dismissed without prejudice.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 15, 2017
On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court, in a one-sentence summary disposition, remanded the case of Gloucester County Sch. Bd. v. G.G. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit “for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.”
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 10, 2017
Last night, the House approved the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act by a vote of 220-201. To review our post last month detailing exactly how this bill would affect class action litigation, click here.
XpertHR • February 10, 2017
The US Supreme Court has announced it will wait to hear a trio of mandatory arbitration cases in employment until its next term, which does not begin until October. The cases involve three Fair Labor Standards Act disputes involving whether employers can use mandatory arbitration clauses to ban employees from bringing class action lawsuits.
Fisher Phillips • February 09, 2017
When the U.S. Supreme Court announced several weeks ago it would settle a dispute about whether employers can use mandatory class action waivers with their workers, most expected a final decision by June 2017. Employers were prepared to spend the next several months with their fingers crossed hoping the decision would fall in their favor, seeking clarity to a topic that has become increasingly muddled over the past year.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 09, 2017
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court notified the parties in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307; Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285; and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300 that the cases will be heard in October 2017. Jackson Lewis has represented Murphy Oil USA throughout these proceedings. As reported in Jackson Lewis’ earlier post, on January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court consolidated the three cases and granted certiorari.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 06, 2017
The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has instructed Regional Offices to hold in abeyance cases involving mandatory arbitration agreements with opt in or opt out clauses. Regions must do the same in cases where an employer argues that the class action waiver in its arbitration agreement is different than the one at issue in Murphy Oil. Regions are to evaluate cases independently.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 06, 2017
The Patriots, Falcons, and . . . class actions?
Jackson Lewis P.C. • January 24, 2017
The Supreme Court, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), set a high standard for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”). Under Rule 23(a), the party seeking certification must demonstrate that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23. Additionally, the proposed class must satisfy at least one of the three requirements in Rule 23(b). Id. In determining whether these requirements are met, the Supreme Court has instructed district courts to conduct a “rigorous analysis,” which frequently “will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551.