---
title: "EMPLOYER WATCH - ISSUE OF WHETHER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS MAY PROHIBIT EMPLOYEES FROM PURSUING CLASS ACTIONS"
description: ""
url: "https://wimlaw.com/publications/newsletters/november-2016/employer-watch-issue-of-whether-arbitration-agreements-may-prohibit-employees-from-pursuing-class-actions"
date: "2026-06-09T21:27:17+00:00"
language: "en-US"
---

#  EMPLOYER WATCH - ISSUE OF WHETHER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS MAY PROHIBIT EMPLOYEES FROM PURSUING CLASS ACTIONS

Written on November 10, 2016.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has asked the Supreme Court to review whether arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from pursuing class or collective actions are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). *NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.*, U.S., No. 16-307, cert. petition 9/9/16. This issue is monumental, as up until recently the federal appeals courts have been ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act expresses a policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements like the ones at issue. These rulings allowing such broad arbitration provisions banning class and collective actions have been upheld by the federal circuit courts of appeal in the Second, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits. The circuit courts of appeal from the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have reached a contrary result.

The magnitude of the issue is shown in cases such as those involving *Uber Technologies, Inc.* Uber is being sued in various cases across the country contending that its contract workers are actually employees, subject to the legal protections of the employment laws including those pertaining to minimum wage and overtime, unionization, discrimination, etc. In the face of such litigation threats, Uber instituted a national arbitration policy requiring its contract workers to resolve their disputes with the company through individual arbitration cases, rather than class or collective actions in court. In just one of the cases, Uber had agreed to pay as much as $100 million to cover drivers in several states, but a federal judge rejected the proposed settlement. In that case, a federal appeals court later ruled that Uber’s arbitration clause was enforceable, reducing the size of the pending class action to the small percentage of drivers who had opted out of the arbitration agreements. *Mohamed v. Uber Techs., 2016 WL4651409 (C.A. 9, 9/7/16).* Advocates of arbitration agreements argue that it is a fairer process and much less costly and quicker than lengthy court class action litigation.

As a result of this and other similar litigation, a majority of Fortune 500 companies have elected to institute individual arbitration agreements with their employees, often in devices as simple as including such provisions on their employment applications. As a result, employers have been able to lessen the volume of court litigation, while providing their employees a quicker and easier way to pursue legal claims. Recently the proliferation of arbitration provisions prohibiting class and collective action have become common, thus providing further protection to employers.

In recent years, the NLRB has been attacking these provisions, contending that such agreements banning class or collective actions unlawfully interfere with the employees’ rights under the NLRA to engage in concerted activity by participating in such class or collective actions. Thus, in *D.R. Horton, Inc.*, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), the NLRB found that an employer violated the NLRA by enforcing an arbitration policy that prohibited any participation in a class, collective or similar actions by employees. The Fifth Circuit denied enforcement of that ruling at 737 F. 3d 344 (C.A. 5, 2013), and 808 F. 3d 1013 (C.A. 5, 2015). The NLRB argued in its petition for Supreme Court review that while the Federal Arbitration Act expresses a policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements, the savings clause in that law at 9 U.S.C. § 2, doesn’t require enforcement of an arbitration agreement that is illegal under a different law, the NLRA. Meanwhile, the NLRB continues to issue many dozens of rulings finding such class and collective action waivers to be unlawful under the NLRA. More recently, the NLRB has also found that an employer violates the Act by refusing to hire an employee who refuses to sign such a waiver of class and collective action rights. *Keiser University, 363* NLRB No. 73 (12/23/15).

Editor’s Note: Many employers "swear by" individual employment arbitration provisions with class and collective action waivers. They contend arbitration is quicker, cheaper and generally private. Employees are not necessarily opposed to such quicker means of resolving their legal claims, although a few are skeptical and oppose such agreements as giving up their rights to "go to court." The potential disadvantage, however, is that because such provisions allow a simpler and quicker means of legal redress, more employees might be potentially inclined to use these procedures to bring claims. Most employers have found, however, that the use of such arbitration procedures is not excessive.

Some public interest groups feel that mandatory arbitration provisions are not fair, and should be found to be unenforceable, unless an employee plaintiff voluntarily decides to enter into such an agreement after bringing a lawsuit in court. The legal resolution of opposition to such arbitration agreements that bar class and collective actions is based on a potential conflict between the current NLRB’s interpretation of "concerted" activity, and the Federal Arbitration Act’s provisions encouraging enforcement of arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court is likely to review this conflict in light of the split of circuits and the importance of the issue. Further, the NLRB has more recently "raised the stakes" in such claims by finding an employer’s refusal to hire an applicant to be unlawful because of that applicant’s refusal to sign an arbitration agreement waiver of class or collective actions.

- [](https://x.com/intent/post?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimlaw.com%2Fpublications%2Fnewsletters%2Fnovember-2016%2Femployer-watch-issue-of-whether-arbitration-agreements-may-prohibit-employees-from-pursuing-class-actions.md&text=)
- [](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwimlaw.com%2Fpublications%2Fnewsletters%2Fnovember-2016%2Femployer-watch-issue-of-whether-arbitration-agreements-may-prohibit-employees-from-pursuing-class-actions.md)
- [](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimlaw.com%2Fpublications%2Fnewsletters%2Fnovember-2016%2Femployer-watch-issue-of-whether-arbitration-agreements-may-prohibit-employees-from-pursuing-class-actions.md)
- [](mailto:?subject=EMPLOYER%20WATCH%20-%20ISSUE%20OF%20WHETHER%20ARBITRATION%20AGREEMENTS%20MAY%20PROHIBIT%20EMPLOYEES%20FROM%20PURSUING%20CLASS%20ACTIONS)

##  Related Content

##  Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

##  Recent Content

 [ November 2016 ](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=138)

 [ ![ai, human reach out](https://wimlaw.com/media/yootheme/cache/f1/igor-omilaev-FHgWFzDDAOs-unsplash-f12346e8.jpg) ](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1582:fcra-litigation-challenges-employers-ai-hiring&catid=53)###  [FCRA Litigation Challenges Employers’ Use of AI Hiring Platforms](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1582:fcra-litigation-challenges-employers-ai-hiring&catid=53)

[Employment Law Newsletter: A Monthly Report On Labor Law Issues](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=53)

A January 20, 2026, class action filed against Eightfold AI, Inc. in California is sending shockwaves through the employer and AI community…

[Read more](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1582:fcra-litigation-challenges-employers-ai-hiring&catid=53)

 [ ![danger sign, skull](https://wimlaw.com/media/yootheme/cache/01/mikael-seegen-jX6WXNkvsPs-unsplash-01c1ebef.jpg) ](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1584:ai-research-discovery-requests-dangers&catid=53)###  [The Dangers of Employers Using AI Research Tools as to Discovery Requests from Plaintiffs](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1584:ai-research-discovery-requests-dangers&catid=53)

[Employment Law Newsletter: A Monthly Report On Labor Law Issues](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=53)

A second “bombshell” affecting HR pertaining to AI is a federal court ruling in New York, that a defendant’s use of AI in researching and p…

[Read more](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1584:ai-research-discovery-requests-dangers&catid=53)

 [ ![CHAT GPT](https://wimlaw.com/media/yootheme/cache/64/emiliano-vittoriosi-fvxNerA8uk0-unsplash-64a16be4.jpg) ](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1585:ai-employer-protection&catid=53)###  [Two Subsequent Cases Protect Defendant’s Use of AI as Subject to Work-product Protection](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1585:ai-employer-protection&catid=53)

[Employment Law Newsletter: A Monthly Report On Labor Law Issues](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=53)

Soon after the deciding of the above-discussed case on February 17, 2026, in U.S. v. Heppner, a criminal case in the District Court for the…

[Read more](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1585:ai-employer-protection&catid=53)

 [ ![avoid, wave away](https://wimlaw.com/media/yootheme/cache/6f/priscilla-du-preez-NQTphr4Pr60-unsplash-6fb4df83.jpg) ](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1586:employer-avoid-waiving-privileges-ai-research&catid=53)###  [Is There Anything an Employer Can Do to Avoid Waiving Privileges in Using AI Research Tools?](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1586:employer-avoid-waiving-privileges-ai-research&catid=53)

[Employment Law Newsletter: A Monthly Report On Labor Law Issues](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=53)

There are no easy answers to the above question, but some general observations will nevertheless be made. First, the New York district cou…

[Read more](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1586:employer-avoid-waiving-privileges-ai-research&catid=53)

 [ ![ai visualization](https://wimlaw.com/media/yootheme/cache/45/milad-fakurian-5yWtM3M3JKM-unsplash-45306e6d.jpg) ](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1587:ai-legal-recommendations&catid=53)###  [Suggestions on Use of AI](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1587:ai-legal-recommendations&catid=53)

[Employment Law Newsletter: A Monthly Report On Labor Law Issues](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=53)

Perhaps the starting point is to look at the type of AI platforms generally available. At a recent conference about AI use for HR, speaker…

[Read more](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1587:ai-legal-recommendations&catid=53)

 [ ![june 2026 legal immigration webinar promo graphic](https://wimlaw.com/media/yootheme/cache/45/june-2026-webinar-immigration-453d45bc.jpg) ](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1583:worksite-enforcement-tps-parole&catid=221)###  [Worksite Enforcement and TPS and Parole Status Update](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1583:worksite-enforcement-tps-parole&catid=221)

[Webinars: Employment Law "Hot Topics"](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=221)

The webinar covers how to deal with a worksite enforcement action and various types of immigration enforcement activities. The webinar also…

[Read more](https://wimlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1583:worksite-enforcement-tps-parole&catid=221)

### Additional Legal Resources

[### Newsletter

Explore

 ](https://wimlaw.com/publications/newsletters)

[### Books

Explore

 ](https://wimlaw.com/publications/books)

[### Alerts

Explore

 ](https://wimlaw.com/alerts)

[### Articles

Explore

 ](https://wimlaw.com/articles)

[### Audits

Explore

 ](https://wimlaw.com/audits)

[### Events

Explore

 ](https://wimlaw.com/events)

## Schema

```json
{ "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "Home", "item": "https://wimlaw.com" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 2, "name": "Publications", "item": "https://wimlaw.com/publications" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 3, "name": "Newsletters", "item": "https://wimlaw.com/publications/newsletters" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 4, "name": "November 2016", "item": "https://wimlaw.com/publications/newsletters/november-2016" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 5, "name": "EMPLOYER WATCH - ISSUE OF WHETHER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS MAY PROHIBIT EMPLOYEES FROM PURSUING CLASS ACTIONS", "item": "https://wimlaw.com/publications/newsletters/november-2016/employer-watch-issue-of-whether-arbitration-agreements-may-prohibit-employees-from-pursuing-class-actions" } ] }
```