Supreme Court Upholds Employers’ Uses of Arbitration Clauses to Block Class Action Lawsuits

Arbitration Clauses

image credit

The U.S. Supreme Court has again deflected a challenge to the use in employment agreements of dispute resolution clauses that mandate arbitration and generally bar class action lawsuits. The May 21, 2018 decision was a close call for employers: a 5-4 decision with the conservative majority carrying the day. Nonetheless, this represents a major victory in their battle against expensive lawsuits that pose extraordinary financial risks.

In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Supreme Court dealt with challenges to class action restrictions in arbitration clauses based on the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protect workers’ rights to collective activities. The NLRA guarantees employees the right to unionize and sets up an enforcement scheme under the National Labor Relations Board. After it altered its prior interpretation and held in 2012 that class actions could not be barred by arbitration clauses, challenges were filed based on a conflict between the NLRA and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which provides for the enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements. In the face of a strong dissent, the Court concluded that the NLRA cannot override the FAA because Congress did not provide for it to do so.

The use of mandatory arbitration clauses that bar class action lawsuits is growing in the Commonwealth. They provide potentially huge benefits by precluding the extreme risks presented by suits involving tens, hundreds or even thousands of employees. It is now common for larger employers who could face class actions by virtue of their sizes to mandate resolution of disputes by individual arbitration, and a growing number of small companies seeks the cost and time advantages arbitration can provide. To be sure, employers who use mandatory arbitration agreements must take care not to trample on employee rights and thereby invalidate their contracts, a result that remains possible under current law. Arbitration clauses are enforced only if they are reasonable and are contained in valid contracts between employees and employers.

With the New Equal Pay Act Set to Take Effect on July 1, 2018, it’s Time for Employers to Evaluate their Wage Practices

The effective date of the new Massachusetts Equal Pay Act is fast approaching, and employers who have not yet begun to evaluate wage disparities between men and women need to start the process. Beginning July 1, 2018, the revised law will require that employees be paid equally for work involving similar skill, effort and responsibility. Analyzing existing wage disparities and making progress to address them will help shield employers from double the amounts of wage disparities and other penalties under the Equal Pay Act.

The new Equal Pay Act revises an existing law that, due to court interpretation, has been effectively useless to address wage disparities. It mandates that all workers be paid the same for “comparable” work regardless of gender and bars companies from ordering their employees not to talk about their pay. Courts evaluating Equal Pay Act claims will ignore job titles and focus on whether jobs require “substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility” and are “performed under similar working conditions.” Penalties under the Act are substantial and include the payment of employee legal fees, but can be abated or avoided completely by self-evaluation and concrete action in advance of July 1, 2018. Implementation of the law was delayed two years from its passage in July 2016 to provide employers time to address pay disparities.

Employers who haven’t yet done so should proceed quickly to determine whether wage inequity exists. Doing this with the assistance of counsel, either in-house or from outside the company, should permit the initial findings of an Equal Pay Act audit to be kept confidential. This makes sense given the existence of a federal law on equal pay that does not shield audits in the same way the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act does. Once an initial audit is completed, employers should decide with the advice of counsel how to address the results and whether more audit work is needed. Under the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, progress on abating unequal pay is required before the audit will be a useful defense to suit.