Whistleblower Protection Blog : Whistleblower Lawyer & Attorney : National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund : Whistleblower Protection, Fraud Claims : Washington DC

The National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) joined with 24 other organizations to submit an amicus brief to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The D.R. Horton company has appealed a major decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) holding that employees have an inalienable right to bring collective and class action lawsuits.

At stake is the right of employees to join together for collective and class actions. This long-recognized right is under attack by forced arbitration agreements in which companies demand that all their employees give up these rights as a condition of employment.

The D.R. Horton company is attempting to use a recent Supreme Court decision to block collective actions by employees. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), a 5-4 majority held that companies can use the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to block consumers from bringing class action arbitrations. However, the Supreme Court was looking at California's attempt to hold such arbitration agreements unconscionable. The Supreme Court did not consider the effect of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 157, which specifically protects the right of covered employees to act in concert for their mutual aid and protection. Courts have long held that this federal right specifically protects the right of employees to join together in legal actions against their employer. Eastex Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 566 (1978). No union is necessary for employees to be protected when they act in concert. Brady v. NFL, 644 F.3d 661, 673 (8th Cir. July 8, 2011). Still, it would be good if Congress would enact the Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA) to prohibit companies from forcing any arbitration agreements on consumers or employees.

 

The NLRB explained its decision saying:

It is well settled that “mutual aid or protection” includes employees’ efforts to “improve terms and conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot as employees through channels outside the immediate employe-eemployer relationship.” Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S.556, 565–566 (1978). The Supreme Court specifically stated in Eastex that Section 7 “protects employees from retaliation by their employer when they seek to improve their working conditions through resort to administrative and judicial forums.” Id. at 565-566. The same is equally true of resort to arbitration.

The NLRB adopted this argument suggested by our prior amicus brief:

Modern Federal labor policy begins not with the NLRA, but with earlier legislation, the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, which aimed to limit the power of Federal courts both to issue injunctions in labor disputes and to enforce “yellow dog” contracts prohibiting employees from joining labor unions. Thus, Congress has aimed to prevent employers from imposing contracts on individual employees requiring that they agree to forego engaging in concerted activity since before passage of the NLRA. [Footnotes omitted.]

This decision applies only to those employees who work for private companies in the United States and have a right to organize a union. However, it will apply to these employees whether or not they actually have a union.  Additionally, NLRB decisions often lead other agencies to adopt the same policies. In the past, some NLRB policies have been overturned once a new president appoints Board members who have different philosophies.

Many thanks to attorneys Hal K. Gillespie, Yona Rozen and Joseph H. Gillespie of Gillespie, Rozen and Watsky in Dallas, Texas, and to Michael C. Subit (of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP in Seattle, Washington), Victoria W. Ni (of Public Justice in Oakland, California) and Rebecca M. Hamburg (of the National Employment Lawyers Association in San Francisco) for leading the organizing and writing for this brief.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a major decision holding that employees have an inalienable right to bring collective and class action lawsuits. The National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) joined with the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) and other groups in an amicus brief to urge the NLRB to reach this decision.

This long-recognized right of employees to bring collective and class actions is under attack by forced arbitration agreements. Sophisticated companies demand that all their employees give up these rights as a condition of employment. "An employer’s requirement that its employees prospectively waive their rights to engage in concerted legal activity about their conditions of employment is as much a violation of section 8(a)(1) as a 'yellow dog contract' prohibiting unionization altogether," the amicus brief argued.

In this case, the D.R. Horton company attempted to use a recent Supreme Court decision to block collective actions by employees. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), a 5-4 majority held that companies can use the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to block consumers from bringing class action arbitrations. However, the Supreme Court was looking at California's attempt to hold such arbitration agreements unconscionable. The Supreme Court did not consider the effect of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 157, which specifically protects the right of covered employees to act in concert for their mutual aid and protection. Courts have long held that this federal right specifically protects the right of employees to join together in legal actions against their employer. Eastex Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 566 (1978). No union is necessary for employees to be protected when they act in concert. Brady v. NFL, 644 F.3d 661, 673 (8th Cir. July 8, 2011). Still, it would be good if Congress would enact the Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA) to prohibit companies from forcing any arbitration agreements on consumers or employees.

The NLRB explained its decision saying:

It is well settled that “mutual aid or protection” includes employees’ efforts to “improve terms and conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot as employees through channels outside the immediate employe-eemployer relationship.” Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S.556, 565–566 (1978). The Supreme Court specifically stated in Eastex that Section 7 “protects employees from retaliation by their employer when they seek to improve their working conditions through resort to administrative and judicial forums.” Id. at 565-566. The same is equally true of resort to arbitration.

The NLRB adopted this argument suggested by our amicus brief:

Modern Federal labor policy begins not with the NLRA, but with earlier legislation, the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, which aimed to limit the power of Federal courts both to issue injunctions in labor disputes and to enforce “yellow dog” contracts prohibiting employees from joining labor unions. Thus, Congress has aimed to prevent employers from imposing contracts on individual employees requiring that they agree to forego engaging in concerted activity since before passage of the NLRA. [Footnotes omitted.]

This decision applies only to those employees who work for private companies in the United States and have a right to organize a union. However, it will apply to these employees whether or not they actually have a union.  Additionally, NLRB decision often lead other agencies to adopt the same policies. In the past, some NLRB policies have been overturned once a new president appoints Board members who have different philosophies.

Special thanks go to attorneys Michael C. Subit (of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP in Seattle, Washington), Victoria W. Ni (of Public Justice in Oakland, California) and Rebecca M. Hamburg (of the National Employment Lawyers Association in San Francisco) for leading the organizing and writing for this brief.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) joined with 26 other organizations to submit an amicus brief to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). At stake is the right of employees to join together for collective and class actions. This long-recognized right is under attack by forced arbitration agreements in which companies demand that all their employees give up these rights as a condition of employment. "An employer’s requirement that its employees prospectively waive their rights to engage in concerted legal activity about their conditions of employment is as much a violation of section 8(a)(1) as a 'yellow dog contract' prohibiting unionization altogether," the brief argues.

In this case, the D.R. Horton company is attempting to use a recent Supreme Court decision to block collective actions by employees. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), a 5-4 majority held that companies can use the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to block consumers from bringing class action arbitrations. However, the Supreme Court was looking at California's attempt to hold such arbitration agreements unconscionable. The Supreme Court did not consider the effect of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 157, which specifically protects the right of covered employees to act in concert for their mutual aid and protection. Courts have long held that this federal right specifically protects the right of employees to join together in legal actions against their employer. Eastex Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 566 (1978). No union is necessary for employees to be protected when they act in concert. Brady v. NFL, ____F.3d ____, 2011 WL 2652323 at *10 (8th Cir. July 8, 2011). Still, it would be good if Congress would enact the Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA) to prohibit companies from forcing any arbitration agreements on consumers or employees.

Special thanks go to attorneys Michael C. Subit (of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP in Seattle, Washington), Victoria W. Ni (of Public Justice in Oakland, California) and Rebecca M. Hamburg (of the National Employment Lawyers Association in San Francisco) for leading the organizing and writing for this brief.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that prohibits employers from retaliating against a whistleblower's family members or other associates. The decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless LP is unanimous, and reverses an en banc decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio. The decision makes clear that victims of retaliation do not have to show that they themselves engaged in any "protected activity." Instead, they must show that they are "person[s] aggrieved" by unlawful retaliation. The Supreme Court declines to identify any "fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful." Instead, courts will have to decide the application in each case, based upon "the particular circumstances." In the decision, the Supreme Court relies heavily on its 2006 decision in Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53. The Court today reiterates that employers are not allowed to take any action that would dissuade a "reasonable worker" from engaging in protected activity. The Court recognizes that this standard "must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct." The Court said that it is "obvious" that allowing employers to fire a fiance would discourage employees from raising concerns about violations of the law.

Until recently, I thought this issue had been well settled.  The EEOC had long held that employers may not retaliate against those associated with others who engaged protected activity. Courts, including the Sixth Circuit, had agreed that spouses, for example, had a right to sue when they suffered retaliation prompted by the other spouse's protected activity.  See, for example, EEOC v. Ohio Edison, 7 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 1993). The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had also held that retaliation against relatives was against the law. See NLRB v. Advertisers Mfg. Co., 823 F.2d 1086, 1088-89 (7th Cir. 1987). Since then, a series of more hostile appellate court decisions have barred such claims. Today, that era of hostility is over.

North American Stainless (NAS) hired Eric Thompson as a metallurgical engineer for its plant in Carroll County, Kentucky, in 1997. In 2000, NAS hired Miriam Regalado.  Soon, Miriam and Eric became engaged.  They are today married to each other. In September 2002, Miriam filed a charge with the EEOC claiming that NAS discriminated against her on account of her gender. On February 13, 2003, EEOC notified NAS of the charge. On March 7, 2003, NAS fired Eric.  NAS claims that it discharged Eric because of his performance. Eric filed his own EEOC charge claiming that he was fired in retaliation for Miriam's complaint.

A district court dismissed Eric's complaint holding that he could not sue because he never engaged in protected activity. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit held that Eric could sue. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 520 F.3d 644, 645-46 (6th Cir. 2008). Most of the rest of the Sixth Circuit judges disagreed and vacated the panel's decision. After they voted 10-8 to dismiss Eric's retaliation claim, the Supreme Court agreed to review it.

At the Supreme Court, my hero, Eric Schnapper of Seattle, Washington, wrote a focused brief for Thompson explaining why the law depends on allowing retaliation claims for all aggrieved persons. Attorney Michael Foreman of University Park, Pennsylvania, led a team of lawyers in preparing a friend-of-the-court ("amicus") brief for various civil rights organizations. Congratulations to them all for this outstanding result.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link