Employment Law and Arbitration Analysis: BUS 372, Fall 2019

This report analyzes the Supreme Court's ruling on the consolidation of cases involving forced arbitration in employment contracts. The cases, including Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, addressed whether employers could mandate individual arbitration, thereby preventing employees from pursuing class actions or collective proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of these provisions, impacting employees' rights to litigation. The analysis delves into the legal arguments, referencing key cases such as AT & T Mobility vs. Conception, Ernst & Young LLP vs. Morris, and National Labor Relations Board vs. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. The report examines the interplay between the Federal Arbitration Act and the National Labor Relations Act, considering the implications for labor disputes and employee rights. It also discusses the shift in the Court's stance and the impact of the ruling on industry and employee protections. The student's analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal and practical ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision, offering insights into the future of employment law and arbitration.

Running Head: EMPLOYMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION
EMPLOYMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION
Name of the Students
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1EMPLOYMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION
Arbitration is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution System wherein the third neutral
party decides the case between the parties. Such neutral third party is selected by the parties with
their mutual agreement. It is an alternative to the litigation as remedy against the disputes
between the parties. Arbitration can be used to resolve labor conflicts as an alternative to other
aggressive methods like strikes and lockouts. However, in US, the Court’s interpretation of the
Federal Arbitration Act has drawn huge impact on the class actions being instituted by the
employees or workers against their employers (Horton 2018). The Coal Strike of 1902 (Stace
2015) stands as a backdrop to favor the arbitration by the government. In such cases, the
arbitrator decides the terms and conditions for the collective bargaining and it is called the
interest arbitration.
An effectively drafted arbitration agreement or the inclusion of arbitration clause in the
original contract between the parties stands as the binding clause upon the parties to refer to
arbitration in case of disputes. In AT & T Mobility vs. Conception 563 US 333 (2011), it has
been explained that the Supreme Court of US upheld the validity of the arbitration clause in a
consumer contract. However, such clause for arbitration resulted in waiving of the right of the
person to lawsuit and the right to class action. However, in Epic Systems Corp. vs. Lewis 584
US ___ (2018), it was held by the Supreme Court that the legal issue in the case is whether the
arbitration clause can legally bar the employees class actions or collective arbitration. In the
determination of this question, the Supreme Court relied upon following case laws: Ernst &
Young LLP vs. Morris (2013) (19-300), National Labor Relations Board vs. Murphy Oil USA,
Inc (2015) (16-307) and Epic Systems Corp. vs. Lewis (Docket 16-285 (2015)). In all the cases
the major dispute lied between the applicability of Federation Arbitration Act and National
Labor Relations Act 1935.

2EMPLOYMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION
Section 9 of the Federation Arbitration Act stated that the employment contracts may
allow the disputes to be settled through arbitration. The provision also allowed the arbitration
clause to be compulsory and be binding upon the parties. However, section 29 of the National
Labor Relations Act of 1935 entitled the employees to form trade unions and institute collections
actions against the employer to counter unfair employment practices and other aspects.
Epic Systems Corp. vs. Lewis (Docket 16-285 (2015)) was decided in favor of the
National Labor relations Act explain that FAA may not be enforceable if any law or equity states
about its revocation in any contract.
Ernst & Young LLP vs. Morris (2013) (19-300) was decided stating that the section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act protects the interest of the employees to form unions and
entitlement to collective action.
National Labor Relations Board vs. Murphy Oil USA, Inc (2015) (16-307) was decided
stating that the provisions of FAA was not overridden by the provisions of National labor
Relations Act.
However in DIRECTV, Inc. vs. Imburgia 577 US ___ (2015), it was held by the Supreme
Court of US that the arbitration clause shall be viable and be binding upon the employees and
workers on the ground of the consolidation of all the above-mentioned three cases into one case,
which were all filed seeking the remedy of certiorari with respect to the similar matter involving
the issue of validity of compulsory arbitration clause with respect to the employees’ right to
ligation and collective action.
During the Obama governance, the general favor was towards the viability of the
National Labor Relations Act and it helped to protest against the unfair practices of arbitration

3EMPLOYMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION
and related actions. However, in Trump governance, the Board continues to favor the interest of
the employees. Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and the replacement of seat in
2017, the majority of count is dominated by the conservative justices in the court which may
favor the employers. It can be observed in decisions of Court following the event of replacement
of seat of Justice Scalia wherein the decisions been favoring the arbitration clause without any
overriding relevance to the saving clause of FAA or National Labor Relations Act.
Thus, it can be concluded that the decision of the Supreme Court is in favor of the
employees to protect them because such cases are heard amicus curiae (heard by a party who is
not the party to the case or has any interest with the case or the associated parties) to support the
employer’s position towards the lack of trust and confidence from the employees.

4EMPLOYMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION
REFERENCE:
AT & T Mobility vs. Conception 563 US 333 (2011)
DIRECTV, Inc. vs. Imburgia 577 US ___ (2015)
Epic Systems Corp. vs. Lewis (Docket 16-285 (2015)).
Epic Systems Corp. vs. Lewis 584 US ___ (2018)
Ernst & Young LLP vs. Morris (2013) (19-300)
Horton, D. (2018). Arbitration About Arbitration. Stan. L. Rev., 70, 363.
National Labor Relations Board vs. Murphy Oil USA, Inc (2015) (16-307)
Stace, T. I. (2015). A Community in Conflict: The Crowsnest Pass' 1932 Coal Strike.