It's getting much harder to sue your boss

After a recent court ruling, labor lawyers are worried that employment contracts will soon have standard clauses barring lawsuits against companies.

By The Fiscal Times Jan 16, 2014 5:14PM
Image: Businesswoman and businessman (© Eric Audras/PhotoAlto Agency RF Collections/Getty Images)Rob Garver, The Fiscal Times

In 2006, the nationwide home-building company D. R. Horton (DHI) began requiring all new employees -- and any existing employees who wanted to keep their jobs -- to sign an agreement saying that they agreed to "voluntarily waive all rights to trial in court before a judge or jury on all claims" between the employee and the company. They would submit, instead, to binding arbitration.

Not only did employees who signed the agreement waive their right to participate in a class-action lawsuit, they also waived their right to participate in class-based arbitration. The National Labor Relations Board in 2012 ruled that the agreement was illegal, but last month the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans overturned that ruling.

Some labor lawyers concerned that if the appeals court ruling is upheld, clauses barring class-action lawsuits and class arbitrations could quickly become standard elements in most employment contracts, effectively barring many non-unionized workers from a tool that has historically been used to vindicate workers’ rights.

Catherine K. Ruckelshaus, general counsel and program director for the National Employment Law Project, said that because of under-funding of agencies that enforce labor laws, class action "has been pretty much the only game in town" for workers looking for relief from abusive employers. "If you can’t aggregate the claims, there is very little pressure on the employer," said Ruckelshaus.

In recent years class actions have been used successfully to challenge the practice of making employees work "off the clock" at major retailers and to require that overtime pay be given to workers illegally classified as exempt from overtime requirements.

There are several arguments in favor of allowing contracts that mandate arbitration. It's usually cheaper and faster than going through the court system, and to be sure, businesses are often subjected to frivolous lawsuits in the guise of class actions.

But according to Ruckleshaus, the contracts take advantage of employees who aren't in a position to refuse to sign them, and who get nothing in return for what they are giving up.

"Almost any worker or employee is not going to feel empowered to say 'No, I'm not going to sign that' if it's presented as a condition to getting or keeping a job," she said. "It's an incredible assault on our right to our day in court."

"That is why the case is so important," said Craig Becker, who served as an NLRB board member under a recess appointment until the end of 2011, and voted in favor of the agency's ruling in the Horton case.

Becker, now general counsel to the AFL-CIO, said the ability of workers to pool resources in order to act against perceived unfair practices is "a mechanism that most people take for granted."

Mandatory arbitration clauses are not new, and are not unique to employment contracts. They are a common feature of credit card contracts and other financial agreements. (And are currently being examined by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.) They have also, for example, historically been a part of employment contracts for executive-level and other high-ranking employees in the financial services industry.

But their increasing use in low-wage employees' contracts, along with the bar to class action, are relatively recent developments, which have attracted the attention not just of the courts, but of lawmakers.

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., have sponsored a bill, the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013, which would bar companies from requiring employees and consumers to consent to binding arbitration prior to a dispute arising. Consent to binding arbitration would still be allowed after a dispute has arisen.

In a statement provided to the Fiscal Times, Franken said, "Mandatory arbitration puts consumers and workers at a huge disadvantage, limiting their access to meaningful legal recourse and preventing them from banding together with others who experienced the same injustices. My Arbitration Fairness Act would restore critical rights to workers and consumers who have been wronged."

The future of the arbitration clause in employment contracts in the wake of the Horton decision is unclear -- a single ruling in a federal appeals court, said a former NLRB member, is unlikely to convince businesses that their use is now unchallengeable.

"The key takeaway from this case is that the issue is not dead," said Ron Meisburg, former general counsel of the NLRB and, for a time, a board member under a recess appointment. "The Board is very likely to continue to enforce the law and maintain that these kind of clauses are unlawful," continued Meisburg, who is now a partner and co-head of the Labor-Management Relations Practice Group at the Proskauer law firm in Washington, DC. "So for the time being, maintaining these contract clauses puts companies at risk of NLRB prosecution and an adverse decision."

A number of other cases, however, including two that are working their way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have many labor attorneys convinced that the Supreme Court is likely to weigh in on the issue in the near future.

More from The Fiscal Times

Tags: DHI
Jan 16, 2014 6:54PM
A future Republican in the making.​​om/watch?v=AukE25is​p​VY

They are simply adorable and loving little things aren't they?
Jan 16, 2014 6:59PM
Welcome to our corrupt business!

Now, please sign the dotted line agreeing to not report our unethical business practices, or you will not get hired.

Now that you've signed, I've got a scam for you to do!

Jan 17, 2014 11:44AM
this is a very scary development..........
Jan 16, 2014 8:47PM
The lawyers aren't concerned with employee contracts nearly as much as their ability to sue employers.  Almost every problem this nation has ever had can be traced to a lawyer.
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?


Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.


StockScouter rates stocks from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, using a system of advanced mathematics to determine a stock's expected risk and return. Ratings are displayed on a bell curve, meaning there will be fewer ratings of 1 and 10 and far more of 4 through 7.

124 rated 1
266 rated 2
452 rated 3
702 rated 4
671 rated 5
604 rated 6
640 rated 7
495 rated 8
267 rated 9
158 rated 10

Top Picks




Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.

Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.

Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.