Skip to main content

Two Important Arbitration Clause Related Rulings Handed Down (Ninth Circuit)


Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts:  Fatemeh Johnmohammadi brought a class action against Bloomingdale's to recover unpaid overtime wages.  Once the case got moved to federal court, Bloomingdale's sought to compel arbitration.  At issue was an arbitration agreement in Bloomingdale's employment documents which  provided that employees who failed to opt out waived their right to pursue employment related claims on a collective basis in any forum, judicial or arbitral.  As a result, the court held that Johnmohammadi entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that all her claims fell within the scope of that agreement. 

Holding:  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court and held that arbitration agreements which become effective if the employee fails to "opt out" of the agreement within thirty days are enforceable.  The Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiff's argument that the "opt out" provision violated the National Labor Relations Act.  As a result, the Court held that there was no interference with concerted activity, the agreement was not a mandatory condition of employment, and the plaintiff previously could have opted out of the arbitration provision and thus preserved her right to proceed in court.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Watford

Date:  June 23, 2014



Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts:  After a Supreme Court decision in 2011, Nordstrom made revisions to the employee arbitration policy in its employee handbook, which precluded employees from bringing most class action lawsuits.  Faine Davis then filed a class action lawsuit and alleged that Nordstrom violated various state and federal employment laws.  Nordstrom, relying upon the revised arbitration policy, sought to compel Davis to submit to individual arbitration of her claims.  The district court held that Davis and Nordstrom did not enter into a valid arbitration agreement and denied Nordstrom's motion to compel arbitration. 

Holding:  The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and held that Nordstrom's arbitration agreement could unilaterally be modified to include a class action waiver as long as thirty days notice was given to employees.  In this instance, the Court found that the change and the notice were sufficient to create a binding arbitration agreement, even without the employee's signature. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Smith

Date:  June 23, 2014

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more