In DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, a decision released this week, the United States Supreme Court rejected the California Court of Appeal’s interpretation of a binding arbitration provision that would have rendered unenforceable a class arbitration waiver provision.  In doing this, the Supreme Court once again affirmed the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the invalidity of  attempts by state courts to limit the enforceability of class arbitration waiver provisions.

DIRECTV involved a claim by consumers that DIRECTV’s early termination fees violate California law.  The service agreement at issue in the action provided that any claims would be resolved by binding arbitration.  The agreement contained a class arbitration waiver but provided that if the “laws of your state” made the waiver unenforceable, then the entire arbitration provision “is unenforceable.”  The lawsuit was filed in 2008, prior to the United States Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion holding that the FAA preempted California case law deeming class arbitration waiver provisions unenforceable.Continue Reading United States Supreme Court Once Again Rejects California’s Attempt To Void Class Arbitration Waivers

Stoel Rives labor and employment attorney Adam Belzberg and water resources attorney Wes Miliband were quoted in a Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) article titled “California Drought Has Wide-Ranging Effects in Business Community.” The article examines the effects of California’s long-lasting drought on the state’s job market, specifically on the agricultural and…

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, signed by President Obama on November 2nd, contains a buried provision with the potential to substantially impact employers. Section 701 of the Act significantly increases the maximum civil penalties that may be imposed for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. OSHA penalties — which have not changed…

Employers probably are aware of the “quickie” election rules implemented earlier this year by the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”), but they may not have considered all of the rules’ consequences. With as little as 15 to 20 days to respond to an organizing drive, employers must be prepared to educate employees about the risks and consequences of union representation on very short notice. While many employers have prepared as we described here, some still may not be ready to answer questions from workers and explain the consequences of unionizing the workplace. Responding to workers’ questions about a union without being properly prepared can make a mess of things, even if employers speak the truth.

A recent case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Board decision that provides a good reminder that managers must be extremely careful even when speaking the truth to workers during an organizing campaign.

Be Careful What You Say

When a car dealership in Illinois learned that some employees were stirring up interest in unionizing, the plant’s general manager met with workers to discuss unions and answer their questions. The manager answered their questions honestly, but his answers still violated labor law, according to the Board and the Sixth Circuit.Continue Reading What Employers Can and Cannot Say During a Union Organizing Campaign

According to government studies, last year women overall made approximately 77 cents to the dollar in compensation compared to men. Black women made 64 cents to the dollar. Hispanic women made even less—55 cents to the dollar. Most pay disparity isn’t due to base salaries; it’s due to other forms of compensation such as bonuses,…

Football helmet on gridironAs a lifelong Boise State University fan, and gamer who pre-ordered the EA Sports NCAA Football 2008 game (with Jared Zabransky on the cover), I was probably more excited than your average legal beagle to read last week’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in O’Bannon v. NCAA, et al. Case No 14-16601. However, the…